Deletion of Patriotic Nigras (4th nomination)

Comment: What you pointed out are not policies but guidelines therefore I will only quote them if they have relevance. My main point as I stated in my nomination itself in which is above if you care to read it is that the article is not about a notable organisation. Clearly the previous nominations reflect a view point from such other editors and that should be respected. Their presence is verifiable, but not notable by . This is an organisation with no indication of significance or importance. As I said before if you can tell me a time this group has had a cultural impact (and is verifiable) please enlighten me. I would also make clear this is not  as I have clearly expressed if you can give me some evidence this group is notable then I would change my mind. In summary I believe this article is not about a notable organisation according to the notability guidelines. As a note I am passionate about everything I have my head in
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/30420-pink-penis-attack-on-second-life-chat-show Metro as pointed out does not even mention Patriotic Nigras therefore is an irrelevant source. In response to the  claim It has nothing to do with personal dislike however, the article has irrelevant sources and does not really point out a notable cause or reason. As an encyclopedia it's worth pointing out that large groups based on single-virtual worlds are not added to Wikipedia because if that was the case we would have pages about World of Warcraft guilds and of the type. As stated before, is it worth asking yourself does the group have a viable and verifiable cultural impact
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: What I found: Significant coverage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407907622210 New Scientist September 1, 2007. Less than significant coverage: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22America%27s+hippest+politician%2C+John+Edwards%2C+the+first+presidential+candidate+%22&oq=%22America%27s+hippest+politician%2C+John+Edwards%2C+the+first+presidential+candidate+%22&gs_l=hp.3...1360.1953.0.2078.3.3.0.0.0.0.235.470.0j2j1.3.0.les%3Beqn%2Cfixedpos%3Dfalse%2Cboost_normal%3D40%2Cboost_high%3D40%2Ccconf%3D1-2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0-035%2Crate_high%3D0-035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue..0.0...1c.1.4zn3RjZFCxQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=4624fb5637e33ac3&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=856 The Telegraph March 15, 2007, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407907622118 New Scientist September 1, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/22/lulzsec-4chan-hacking-whos-who Guardian.co.uk June 23, 2011. The article has additional source so that together the topic meets . The close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination) by NAC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Their presence is |verifiable, but not notable by . The article reads like a rap sheet of their antics and also has some  issues (mainly from ) that I don't think will go away—this is a minor article's fourth AfD. The majority of the sources are not |reliable and some are self-published. While I admire the attempt to document and memorialize this piece of Internet culture, now is not the time or place
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:ORG||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:RS)