Deletion of Anonymous (group) (3rd nomination)

Comment: In addition to the Fox11 thing, I see numerous sources that meet  covering them, and many with no connection or only a tangential connection to Chanology. Look at references 47 to the end, and the majority of them are not connected to scientology. I see a several things in there, including LA Weekly, a Wired article (two of them, actually), a Wired blog (which doesn't count quite as much), NPR, 7 News, Irish times, 9News, Associated Press, ABC News, Toronto Sun and Global News. None of those sources mention Chanology. The article clearly and unquestionably meets , , and any other acronym you can throw at it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Anonymous is a weird case in that it's debatable whether it counts as a BLP (the whole meme/biography thing is a bit gray, though we're trending towards deleting meme/biographies). However, it's evident that Anonymous have only has a |short burst of reliable sources, which doesn't indicate notability. Either merge it into Project Chanology, or delete it. I'm not fussed to either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SBST)

Comment: Unless the nominator presents some explanation for how an article with 61 references fails , and some explanation of why the previous two nominations did not settle this matter, I will close this nomination tomorrow as a speedy keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Looking at the previous attempts to delete, its basically the same argument as the last time around |. I push for speedy keep because of | --'''Zac'''''Bowling
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SNOW)