The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Uhhhh....no. — AjaxSmack 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Could I get a rationale for the oppose?Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, If I hafta. Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:RECENTISM/WP:BIAS. No evidence that the "group", with its limited temporal and spatial relevance is the primary topic. Anonymity and the slough of other entries at Anonymous are together more important encyclopedically. — AjaxSmack 00:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose; if anything, Anonymous should redirect to Anonymity, but the disambiguation page is fine too. PowersT 00:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
strong oppose "Anonymous" is an English word, used as a penname, used as many different group names, including the group you mentioned. WP:RECENTISM, WP:Systematic bias - Internet bias; 4chan is not the world, despite messing up Time Magazine's poll. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per AjaxSmack. — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The DAB should stay where it is. However, agree the current disambiguator is misleading and should be changed... most readers would assume it's a band name. Interesting article, BTW, but has many other issues. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per others. A prime example of why we shouldn't use Google and/or page traffic as the basis for a page move. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose; obvious recentism. I specifically also agree with LtPowers about what the situation should be. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.