The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus supports the article's merits. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Nigras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A group of griefers. Some passing mentions are cited, but really nothing significant, and this article seems to serve primarily to glorify them. It's been speedily deleted twice already, this version looks as if it's sourced but the sourced are not substantially about this group, just about the phenomenon of people getting their kicks by disrupting gameplay, with one or two namechecks as examples of a griefer group. A redirect / smerge might be appropriate, but this group seems to me to fail any independent measure of notability by a fair margin. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the group has received significant coverage, primarily this article in Wired (this article does discuss other groups but it does cite the PN's 11 times throughout its five pages) and an interview with NewScientist, there was also an article in The telegraph solely about their attack on John Edward's second life HQ. It was kept overwhelmingly last AfD. - Icewedge (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's clear that they meet the GNG. What they do is largely irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't like the group. I don't like griefers in general. However, the article is well sourced with mainstream links. This clearly meets notability guidelines as I understand them. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. Curious, but why was this re-nominated? RFerreira (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as nothing has changed to render the previous AFD of one month ago -- which was withdrawn by the nominator for reasons not stated but possibly due to WP:SNOW based upon the responses there. Normally I put up boilerplate about articles not being renominated in such a short period of time, but I'll cut slack as technically there wasn't a keep decision last AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.