Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crazyswordsman (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 20 July 2006 (→[[Encyclopædia Dramatica]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Encyclopædia Dramatica

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. (→Netscott) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relative to the propriety of this section has been moved to the talk page. (→Netscott) 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admins: Due to conflicts of interest the following Wikipedia editors who are also Encyclopædia Dramatica editors who have expressed Keep in this AfD can be safely disregarded should be considered relative to deletion reasoning "vanity" (note each external link to the right of each Wikipedia user name that corresponds to that user's Encyclopædia Dramatica account). User:SchmuckyTheCat [1], User:Badlydrawnjeff [2], User:Iicatsii [3], User:Merovingian [4], User:Freakofnurture [5], User:Azathar [6], User:Hardvice [7], and User:Einsidler [8] Thank you, (→Netscott) 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Encyclopedia Dramatica account is not Hardvice, but http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:ImHardviceonWikipedia Hardvice 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their votes cannot be safely disregarded by following the vanity guideline. By the same token, absolutely no one would ever be able to nominate or vote on a Wikipedia AFD (not that we'd want to). Sure, letting us know the fuller picture is a help, but claiming that their comments should be ignored is incorrect. - Hahnchen 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your above commentary was moved to this section of the talk page. (→Netscott) 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please note Netscott makes unproven accusations, and a proven one I made he hides all evidence of it [9]. I am doubtful he will even let my complaint stay, and will probably make more unfounded accusations. There have also been other comments that he has completely hidden and not archived at all. Any good arguments are hidden. Hardvice 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about all the other articles. Having said that, we've got some set criteria for notability and I think we should stick with them until these rules are changed by consensus. I'm not saying this out of some slavish devotion to rules; I respect the fact they are formed by a broader consensus and are our best bulwark against a much busier, messier and more subjective deletion process. (In the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags.) --A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Wikipedia is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.--MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Wikipedia and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.  TALK  22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As we should. This is not an attack article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.--MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please provide a diff link proving the ED Wikipedia article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:

          • I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

          • I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Wikipedia completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.  TALK  22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". (→Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia--Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Wikipedia... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? (→Netscott) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rootology.--Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.--Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-The website is notable.
  • Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. --Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Wikipedia admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Wikipedia policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karwynn. --Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Wikipedia must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) (→Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. (→Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. --Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? (→Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? (→Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. (→Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. (→Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. (→Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. (→Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). (→Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Banes 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you 100% CBD, Notability has no validity as an argument for deletion... and OR / RS / V are absolutely reason to delete any' article that does not meet these well defined policies. WP:WEB is a guideline and as such can be argued either way... but WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are non-negotiable.--Isotope23 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been said above already. Karmafist p 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Wikipedia does not exist to help them achieve those goals. 800 ghits, ZERO google news, ZERO cited reliable sources, and basically it's just an offsite troll-a-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote. The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Wikipedia(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED. Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete. However, I had separate occasion to reflect on Wikipedia:External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable. One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP. But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE×talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Wikipedia rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Wikipedia, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for the lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Wikipedia discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like it or not, we must abide by our central policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. We cannot keep articles that do not meet these policies. Most of the "keep" voters seem to be arguing that it should be kept because it is notable -- note that notability is not a criterion for inclusion, whereas V and NOR are criteria for inclusion. It is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not if it cannot be written about based on existing, reliable, reputable, secondary sources.
    I strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard all comments, both for and against the article, if they are based on the mistaken assumption that either notability or the lack thereof is able to override the core policies on which the whole of Wikipedia is founded. — Haeleth Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The solution to a blog review is to move it to external links, or even remove it, but not delete the article. Mongo's conduct has nothing to do with this, and should be addressed at WP:ANI, or for a matter of such detail, by an WP:RfC. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is nn and breaks WP:V. FloNight talk 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on grounds of original research, verifiability, and notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as not meeting WP:N. In particular, it fails to meet WP:WEB summarized here (with my additions in caps):
The content itself has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works ... The website or content has NOT won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation ... The content is NOT distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ...
This one seems cut and dried for all the disputation it's generating here; perhaps all the other reasons pro and con are muddying the waters. The site's criticism of Wikipedia should not be a factor even if harsh. A Dramatica sysop's involvement is irrelevant since we're voting on an article, not an editor; the devil himself can write an article for all I care if it meets the guidelines. Vanity can get cleaned up and should not be a reason to delete if otherwise notable. Two previous failed AfDs are instructive but do not prove notability (as someone else claimed). Original research can potentially get cleaned up, but then that might also fix the notability issue. I started to vote "weak" delete based on 117,00 Google hits, then I noted only 109 were unique. There are no Google news hits from the last 7 weeks. Checking alternate spelling ("æ", "ae") gives similar results. Prove notability (or change WP:WEB) and I will be happy to change my vote. --A. B. 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Hit Question have people tried "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or are they just using the ae? Hardvice 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unique Google Hits are completely meaningless. "Microsoft" only gets 460 unique hits. Silensor 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was unaware of the unique hit issue. I did, however, look at (but not open) all 109 links and none were to traditional media; some might have been to notable blogs but I wouldn't know. As for the spelling, as noted in my previous comment, I tried all 3 possibilities ("e", "ae" or "æ"). --A. B. 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZ. Would Microsoft Encarta or Encylopedia Britannica cover this? Would you go to a library and be able to find information on Encylopaeda Dramatica? Most likely not --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can find one mention of Wikipedia in Encarta, and only in context of the open-source movement in a discussion regarding encyclopedias, and nothing in Britannica. So I don't see how that's really relevant. There are far less important things with articles here.Tx9 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note the talk page history of the article as well, related to reasons for deletion. The less important articles (of which there are tens of thousands surely) will not be nominated and pushed for deletion as aggressively as this one. This is a matter of subject matter. Or, using this AfD as basis, if this article is removed, the AfD will surely be clogged with thousands of AfD requests in the next weeks? This is a dangerous precedent being set here. rootology 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AB, with a further plea for reliable sources, - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of it. Homey 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you heard of WP:NOR and WP:V, too?
  • Keep - can't see a problem with it. quercus robur 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you see any reliable independent sources for it? If not, you're looking at a problem with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn Ian¹³/t 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for me. That its content is or was bad is obviously no reason to delete. That it is an attack (is this really so?) on Wikipedia, is obviously not a reason to delete. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toffie and Karwynn Will (message me!) 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Abstain. Comment: Someone is sending unsolicited emails [13] from Wikipedia (presumably via the "Email this user" function), alerting recipients about perceived administrator abuses, this AFD, etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point my opinion won't make much difference, but consider: it's ranked 24,000. Do we need 25,000 articles on the top 25,000 websites? Just because it exists, just because you heard of it, doesn't make it notable. Less than 4 thousandths of 1% of Internet users visit it on a daily basis. Furthermore, it is almost without citations, mostly because the facts involved may be unverifiable. Ingoolemo talk 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. All cited sources are primary sources, which are not acceptable under WP:RS. --Carnildo 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unnotable, and apparently far more bother than its worth. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some US federal government computers, such as mine, are blocked from viewing this site. I suppose that means it has at least a tiny bit of notability. But actually I don't know how these things work. ike9898 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't quite see the merits of deleting, I'm afraid... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you see the merits of citing reliable secondary sources for content in Wikipedia? Are you aware of any of those, for the content about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is there a good reason to waive our policies about verifiability and original research for this particular article, and others like it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously strong extreme speedy keep.  Grue  20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do all of those adjectives in front of "keep" somehow obviate the need to contribute a reason to the discussion, or explain why original research is just fine in this case? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What original research? I see one section tagged as original research, which doesn't merit the deletion of the whole article. The adjectives in front of my "vote" demonstrate my utter amazement that this article is even considered for deletion.  Grue  21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason the other section does not have similar tags is this unexplained removal of a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to Grue, all of the information about ED's content and tone, and most everything about its history that isn't a link to a deletion discussion here, is cited back to ED itself. That's original research, carried out by reading a lot of ED pages, learning about ED, and then writing on Wikipedia what you know about it. Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about ED from the outside, and comment on it, as a noteworthy phenomenon? Are we locating such sources and reporting on what they say is significant about ED? No, because such sources do not yet exist, as far as I can tell, anyway. Until you're doing that, you're doing original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia links back to itself and unverifiable Wikipedia/foundation stuff in several places. Double standard. If these are not valid, the count of users/articles and web traffic volume (the chart) on Wikipedia are not valid and should be removed. rootology 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Double standard" isn't a reason to keep policy violations around. I would suggest that any unverifiable content should be removed from any article, but if it turns out there's a good reason to make an exception for the Wikipedia article (I'm not familiar with that article, and the inevitable OR issues I assume it has), that's certainly no argument to make any other exception. Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org, a new sort of web-directory Wiki where users are encouraged to write about websites based on their experiences with them, and content directly from the site is ideal. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply Keep. Kitia 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Ragib 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more simply keep - It could be a conflict of interests but it's just a reality. -- Szvest 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. -Will Beback 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG SMERGE. I've looked over the history of this article, as well as this discussion, and it seems to be breaking out into a war similar to that which happened to Brian Peppers, which ended very controversially. I don't want to see that happen again. Therefore, I am proposing this compromise to stop stupid debates like this once and for all. To my understanding, much of this information is Original Research, and thus must be removed. However, there is some verifiable information, at least in the opener that can be written without violating WP:NPOV. It is also my understanding that both ED regulars and Wikipedia admins are trolling the page and personally attacking each other. Several people even want this deleted because ED bashes Wikipedia. Censoring Wikipedia bashers violates WP:NPOV last time I checked. One person also sarcastically asked if World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?) would have this. Well, they wouldn't have articles on a lot of notable stuff we have here, and WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. However, WP:NOT a soapbox either, which is what about 4/5 of the article is. Also, the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I ask everyone, especially the extreme keepers and deletionists, to take this argument very seriously. This is one of those debates that went on for an extremely long time and have become flamewars. These debates need to end with all of us giving up a little of what we want to establish a firm community consensus so that doctrine doesn't get forced down our throats. Find a place for the one or two notable, verifiable sentences, and delete the rest of the article. Let's stop the trolling and settle this properly, okay? Thank you. Have a nice day. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get behind this. This would be fine for me as a valid stub that can be expanded in time as press cites grow. rootology 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of those who have followed the edits less closely, can someone provide a link to a reasonable version that's limited to what can be properly sourced? Crazyswordsman made one comment I have to reply to: the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I can't agree with that at all. Notability means notability in the world at large, not among Wikipedians. I love ED, and that doesn't make it notable, either. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [14] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html also cites and links to the ED website. I've just been told as well that www.newsbank.com has some sort of archived Chicago Tribune article that cites it. Waiting for a link. rootology 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That link doesn't point nor does it cite ED. A COMMENT on the blog post does. Unless I'm missing something, if this is the closest to actual coverage you can provide, this is far from evidence of notability, and more evidence of grasping at straws. Why is establishing ED's notability so important to you? Is it truly in the interests of informativeness, or merely vanity? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't have said that, GTBacchus. What I meant was some Wikipedians like to use ED as a dumping ground for non-notable memes. Also, it seems to have widespread (yet unfortunate) popularity within internet communities such as Fark, YTMND, etc. Putting one or two sentences or even a section about ED in the LiveJournal article is something I bet we could all agree upon. Crazyswordsman 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Swordswoman (and others), would you say the washingtonpost link I entered just above and this reference to ED: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/2006-04 ...are valid sources of something's notability? rootology 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rootology, as a blog the first link does not constitute a reliable source and the second link is self referential meaning... does not establish notability. (→Netscott) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Netscott. No. To me, reliance on those specific pieces of evidence is in fact strong evidence of ED's non-notability to date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikizine's site it is seperate from Wikipedia and the foundation, it's just hosted on that URL. Read the page. It appears per that link that ED was notable enough to mail out however in a "news report" to the admins, sysops, and ambassodors of the Wikipedia family. Correct? rootology 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a rather non-notable Wikizine establish the notability of non-notable website with a one line reference to that website? (→Netscott) 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Blogs aren't reliable, sorry. I'm sure there is something out there, but frankly I have better things to do than deal with endless debates such as this. My main purpose is to end the debate, not help decide in the fate of an article that is obviously controversial. Crazyswordsman 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete because multiple people have spammed me about this. Yes, that's not an argument. Here's the argument: fails WP:V, no evidence of notability has been presented (Wikitruth is notable because it has been cited in a newspaper story). Ashibaka tock 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that many here have made good cases for it being WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB. Arguments against deletion seem to be along the lines of "there are worse examples in wikipedia". In that case, fine, let's get that lot into AfD too. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Whispering 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this site is as notable as Uncyclopedia. if there's attack content in the article. Take it out. Don't delete an article based on that.--LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because of the email spam I received promoting this thing. I detest email spam. Vsmith 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Also people don't like getting spammed. You've probably worked this out now. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm fairly new to this discussion and have mostly been reading the comments of others, but it seems rather odd to me that we are considering deleting an article on a website which is home to a great deal of negative criticism of Wikipedia. It would not appear very favorable, now would it? I have done some reading of ED's articles on Wikipedia, and I can imagine that the editors of ED would be thrilled to see non-ED'er Wikipedians deleting the article on ED. It would serve to confirm every negative thing they say about Wikipedia. That alone is reason enough to keep, maybe prune it back to a stub, maybe block certain known abusive editors from being involved with it (esp. those cited as ED users above, per WP:vanity), but in general, keep it. Deletion is too draconian a solution. Kasreyn 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the notability and verifiability questions? (→Netscott) 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems that the desire to delete this article comes from the fact that its subject holds criticism of wikipedia. If wikipedia doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, and criticism of itself, then there's something wrong. - Richardcavell 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about personal attacks on the site to which the article describes: Wikitruth's website has a category called http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians and it has far more personal attacks on wikipedia admins than encyclopedia dramatica. It also has links to three of them on its front page. Where Encyclopedia Dramatica calls one on the list a mere name, wikitruth has pictures, real names, etc. I hope you consider this who voted to delete the article. Hardvice 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't believe the utterly obvious double standards over web content notability guidelines that exist on Wikipedia. Having trawled through countless trivial and banal entries for webcomics, I can tell you 100% that any webcomic with an Alexa rank of 24,000 would be speedily kept and the nominator slapped on the wrist for a bad faith nomination. There is, and should be one guideline for web material, WP:WEB, why the page interpretes as very much laxer for webcomics is beyond me. The amount of delete votes here suggest that any web material less notable or popular would be railgunned out of existence forever. This however, is not the case at Wikipedia, as can be seen in this AFD and this AFD and many others. For example, I agree with the keep outcome of this AFD, but note the total lack of delete votes for a website with an Alexa rank of 60,000. I think that an AFD for it's spinoff The Wotch: Cheer! would also result in a keep, something which I would absolutely disagree with. But the reason that I'm voting keep, isn't just out of spite for the double standards at Wikipedia, but because I genuinely think it's popular enough to be notable. - Hahnchen 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V.--Ávril ♦ ʃáη 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Homestarmy 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject appears nn with no actual reliable sources to show notability (despite Washington Post blog, as WP:WEB points out Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores., thus trivial coverage is not relevant). Furthermore many of the keeps seem to be coming from mass spamming campaign, it seems that this is one of the cases where there is a massive backlash at attempts to manipulate Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopædia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=64777539"