Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous- How They Work Against ISIS

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 delete. Nakon 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous- How They Work Against ISIS

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why should this be on WP? Ueutyi (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic essay. anon vs isis reasonably mentioned in Anonymous (group). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as this is simply not set for a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seemed weird and weak to me, until I ran a simple news search: [1]. Sourcing confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Anonymous (group)#OpISIS. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Rsrikanth05. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a google news search finds sources. notability confirmed article needs to be improved of course but AfD is not a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a record of every single thing that is happening, every single thing that has ever been reported in the news or every single thing that is documented elsewhere already on the web. Did you ever meet an AfD debate where you didn't just say "Keep, meets GNG", based on a two-second Google search but not much analytical thought? N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be covered adequately in Anonymous_(group)#.23OpParis and the present article is just an essay/advertizement from which little of value can be extracted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all covered in Anonymous (group) already, and this is very poorly written and not even well sourced. Plus, the tone is totally that of an essay. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say redirect this article but there is a small chance such a redirect would be useful. Just add anything useful into Anonymous (group) and delete this one. → Call me Razr Nation 10:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the others. Not everything every organisation or group does needs its own discrete page, let alone a random essay like this. WP is an encyclopedia, not a politics noticeboard or Google v.2. N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 8 January 2016 (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.