Talk:Patriotic Nigras

Article for Deletion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patriotic_Nigras_(4th_nomination)

-Recommended deletion, as this is a troll organization, is not notable, and lacks significant sources after months of edits. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see sources all over the place. Are you saying that those sources (Wired Magazine, New Scientist, and the group's own website) aren't legitimate sources of information? Also, I'd say that they are extremely notable, given that almost every one of the several hundred thousand SL users know of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.253.211 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The notability outside SL is the issue. A similarity could be drawn to creating a Wikipedia article for a WoW guild, the notability in-community might be there, but outside of the community involved, it is irrelevant. In addition, this is clearly a troll group and WP:DENY easily applies. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY clearly doesn't apply, because this Second Life troll group sticks basically to SL and YouTube, not on Wikipedia. Denying the Patriotic Nigras a page just because they're trolls on Second Life is like recommending deletion for the Colorado balloon incident article because Richard Heene was mostly motivated for achieving fame. Furthermore, the group is entirely notable and does have significant sources. --Ssj4goku111 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that GNAA is deleted par ordre de mufti while this isn't. I'm not buying the verifiability line. GNAA was deleted because the lemma itself is offensive and putting up an article about it would only be a continuation of the troll. So why not here? Or conversely, why not articlify each and every racist troll out there?--87.162.43.121 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You provide the reliable sources for the GNAA, and then we can talk about writing an article on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Da Killa Wabbit is most likely oppised to this article due to beliefs and opposed to the ideals of the PN, disregard him, he is making a biased opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanrockslol (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

- According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7 tag

The PN are a very well known group. They had an interview in the New Scientist magazine a while back. - Icewedge (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that the OVER NINE THOUSAAAAANNDDD! is a *Chan inside joke,a nd not an actual estimate on the number of accounts operated by PN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.189.254 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thank you for catching that, I have reverted it back to what it was originally. Icewedge (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

work needed

I think with work, this can be taken up to featured article status. The first thing the article needs are some good pictures plus more length. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More like removed. Talk about WP:NOT. And while we're at it lets hope that the PN can get a life some time. Bunch of retards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.144.54 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The information on the Patriotic Nigras page serve as code examples and are reported to be of more help than the 'advanced' scripters who often refuse to help or charge extravagant amounts for a simple scripting tutorial. Are reported to be? Reported to be by who? This whole line just reeks of POV trash. Prio (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet Terrorists

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of the coming here and changing the article to call them "internet terrorists". Are you saying they're the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, and they got bombs strapped to them while they run into the US Embassy? The term griefers is enough.

Quite honestly, depicting griefers as "internet terrorists" is like depicting the school bully as Osama. Just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.41 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that they are best described as "griefers" rather than "internet terrorists", although I am not sure such a view deserves to be called.Icewedge (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TERRORIST, you need reliable sources for that adjective. (also, the name is already taken by Al-Qaeda members who use internet to communicate and to make propaganda) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

Suggest a merge with the article Residents this topic does not need a separate stub article. --— MrBucket^T/_C 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link to PN's website seems dead, maybe remove it

The website is now located at www.patrioticnigras.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbuford (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued use of false citations

Recently User:Jgbuford has been adding information to this article covering the recent (2012-2013) activities of this group. In order to make this material appear as if it were supported by citations he has taken some of the existing citations and slapped them on. It looks nice from a distance, but if you actually read the citations you find that they do not cover the claims Jgbuford has added. Why? Because these citations are dated 2008 and 2009. Logically it is impossible to use them to cite information covering 2012-2013 because this period would have been 3 to 5 years the future at the time of their publication. I initially reverted this addition because it looked like a clear hoax. When I was reverted, I added cleanup tags so that readers would be alerted to the fact that this information is not in fact cited by any sources despite the appearance that they were. This was also reverted. I have written to Jgbuford twice and also to the IP account he is using to edit war but I have received no response. I am now writing this in anticipation of filing an edit warring report. I have restored the cleanup tags again (this makes my third addition of these tags) and I urge Jgbuford to communicate rather than revert. Failure to do so may result in editing restrictions. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)