Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Since this isn't your average AfD, I'll explain this close somewhat in depth. Firstly, going by counting votes (which one of course should never do at AfD), the overwhelming majority want this article kept. However, since this is not a vote count, that is only a contributing factor to the result. Going through the delete votes, there is a clear idea that Encyclopedia Dramatica does not pass two notability guidelines,

WP:N. There is general agreement however, that there is at least one reference that asserts notability, that being this
article. So we have proof that it is somewhat notable, if not in multiple sources.

Secondly, there are many votes that simply conflict each other without any proof or evidence of what they are saying, e.g. "Does not pass

WP:BLP
.

Thirdly, the article was fully protected until 2 days ago, so not allowing any changes to the article could possibly have skewed the debate somewhat.

Fourthly, while many of the websites shown are trivial mentions to some, to others the opinion clearly differs as to what is trivial and what isn't. This is perhaps an issue that should be discussed further on the relevant guideline pages. Additionally, there are going to be more mentions of it out there. Just because they aren't immediately available to you doesn't mean they don't exist.

Fifthly, many of the delete votes do not provide sufficient reasoning for their opinion, e.g. "hate site" is not a reason to delete something. Nor is "attracts drama". Yes, there are similar keep votes, but there are substantially more of people wanting to keep this overall, and in any case the de facto result for these is keep – it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable.

Sixthly, I'll make it clear I do not endorse the content on Encyclopedia Dramatica, particularly its coverage of Wikipedia and its editors. As an encyclopedia however, we need to keep a

neutral point of view
on such issues. We cannot ignore subjects because they are critical of us.

Finally, whilst I have no doubt in my mind I have closed this fairly, I am very sure this will be taken to deletion review. That's fine with me, I know that whichever way this was closed someone would be unhappy. In all, I hope I've done the right thing here. Thanks,

talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

AfDs for this article:
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails

WP:DENY. Has a few links but they all seem to be trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy close without prejudice to relist after the article is unprotected. How are editors to improve the article, use the ediprotected tag? This will surely slow things down for this timed debate. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. ED has been mentioned in a wide variety of news stories and meets notability guidelines, even if they are mean to people on the Internet.Dantsea (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here are the sources from the article:-
    1. Neva, Chonin. "Sex and the City", San Francisco Chronicle, Hearst Communications, 17 September 2006, pp. p.20.—A trivial mention in a roundup of cyber-prank news stories.
    2. "Privacy", Warren's Washington Internet Daily, 12 September 2006.—Couldn't find online, but judging by what it's cited for, trivial as above.
    3. Dee, Jonathan (1 July 2007). All the News That's Fit to Print Out. Magazine p. 5, 34. The New York Times.—A trivial mention in an article about Wikipedia.
    4. Davies, Shaun (8 May 2008). Critics point finger at satirical website. National Nine News.—Not very long and certainly not indepth, but finally, an article about ED.
    5. Douglas, Nick (18 January 2008). What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'?. Gawker.com.—Is Gawker.com a reliable source? In response to a reader query, this piece gives a brief into to four different websites, of which ED is one.
    6. "2 Do: Monday, December 26", RedEye Edition, Chicago Tribune, 16 December 2005, pp. p. 2.—Couldn't find online. One of four sources used to cite the assertion that ED has been described as "coarse, offensive and frequently obscene".
    7. Mitchell, John. "Megabits and Pieces: The latest teen hangout", North Adams Transcript, 20 May 2006.—Ditto.
    8. Hind, John. (5 June 2005). What's the word?. The Observer.—A trivial mention in an article explaining "TL;DR".
    9. Cassel, David (8 March 2007). John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked. AlterNet.—Trivial mention in an article about an e-terrorist group.
    10. Anonymous Protests Outside Scientology Sites. Londonist (11 February 2009).— Trivial mention in an article about anti-Scientology protests; for perspective, www.whyaretheydead.net and www.xenu.net are also linked.
    11. Man Posed As a Woman to Elicit Personal Ad Responses. MSNBC. 12 September 2006.—I wasn't watching TV that day, but see #1 above.
    12. Dibbel, Julian (18 January 2008). Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World. Wired.—Trivial mention (two, to be fair) in an article about internet culture.
    13. Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction. Global Television Network.—This isn't actually a reference so much as a hint that one might exist. See also #1.
    After all that, I can't see a demonstration of notability. Only one source really writes about ED, and that piece really is very short. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a fallacious argument. The reason that the article does not have the best sources available is because it was undeleted yesterday and is protected so noone can improve it. SheffieldSteel should argue on the basis of the reliable sources which can be found to demonstrate the notability of this topic currently, and not the ones which are currently on a write-protected article. The whole point of wikis is that the community can improve badly written or sourced articles, it is fundamentally unfair to judge this article while it is protected. 86.31.102.215 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above comment does not express an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Also, I have made numerous edits to WP, and am anonymous here for the sole reason that expressing an opinion on a page like this one means that a certain subset of editors will label one as a 'troll' and cause trouble elsewhere on the wiki. 86.27.233.17 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is very likely that these are the only sources that exist, given that large numbers of people help to improve articles related to Wikipedia (for obvious reasons) and so there will have been a much bigger effort to find sources for this article. Yes it was undeleted yesterday, but people have been trying to get it undeleted for months and have performed a near-exhaustive search for sources in that time. If you know of any other sources then list them here - this page isn't protected. Hut 8.5 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's fallacious about the argument is that it labels as "trivial" a major newspaper article[3] that devotes only half of its 898 word length to the article subject (calling its treatment of two different events a "roundup"), dismisses three sources as trivial without examining them because they're not online (actually, at least one is - it's just a pay site and the story leads with a mention of an incident on ED [4]) on theory that everything else is trivial so these must be too, and dismisses a two minute long story on a national news network[5] that describes a notorious incident on the site as trivial because "I wasn't watching TV that day". Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are obviously projecting your (ill informed) bias onto this article. ED is not 'devoted to trolling wikipedians' despite what you may think. Only the ones who abuse their influence and power. You can go ahead and go on and on about how 'vulgur' or 'vicious' ED is, but all you are doing in the end is painting yourself as prejudiced. ED meets
    few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply
    ]

arbitrary section break 1

Most of the mentions given are not very specific to ED, mostly just concerning web culture with a trivial mention of ED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanna (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "omgbbqdramaz" mean "keep", "delete", or does it just mean "omgbbqdramaz"? Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 2

Keep For frak's sake! This article was only just created and it's already at AfD?!? Several citations with

WP:RS. Certainly much better coverage than the recently saved First Internet Backgammon Server. Please apply policy consistently. Give the article some time to grow. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)struck through by administrator hu12 blocked sock account[reply
]

politicians Torontonians reading this discussion. Howa0082 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, no. ED covers WAY more than just Wikipedia. Have a look at it before you start making such judgements. Celarnor Talk to me 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignorant and utterly wrong all in one day, how about that? Over 400 categorized pages, and over 700 text matches, including an article on this debate about deleting ED's article from Wikipedia. I'm sticking with my previous statement. If it helps, when I say 'large focus' I'm not talking about some mathematical ratio of Wikipedia mentions to fart jokes (16 matches). I'm simply talking about the inordinate amount of time ED seems to spend poking at Wikipedia, and the obsessive reaction it provokes in Wikipedians. It's not healthy, for us. ED can go talk about Wikipedia, 4Chan, Furries or Republicans all they want. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the debate has come about only because this is ED. If not for the whole drama surrounding ED, it would have been kept. Wouldnt want to colour my own WP understanding based on my POV of ED. Prashanthns (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). While there is slightly more coverage than the last time this came up, the coverage is trivial. Human interest stories on a slow news day. Not enough on which to base a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, I would just like to state that we, unlike Wikipedia, do not automatically ban users of websites we dislike, simply on the basis of that membership. Wikipedians are free to participate on ED without harassment (although they will receive the normal amount of "hazing" we give our active members). This bias that Wikipedia so blatantly holds against ED is hypocritical, drama-inducing, and goes completely against the Wikipedia's goals of NPOV and complete reliable coverage. (I ask you to pardon the logical fallacy of my argument, in light of the fact that the same fallacies are being used in arguments pro-deletion of this article.) -- Finney 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding

few or no other edits
outside this topic.

arbitrary section break 3
The headache will be there either way. Either in maintaining the article, or the fact that next month, when the next article gets written that talks about ED we'll all be back at DRV, then AFD one more time.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will be comparable to having a live article that anyone can edit 24-7. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite protection might be a possibility, given the attention-attracting nature (and not always positive attention) of the subject.
GracenotesT § 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
These are the results from LexisNexis for a keyword search on “Encyclopedia Dramatica” – a newspaper database that has over 20,000 sources of authoritative news, company, financial and market research data:
  • Mentions anywhere: 3 newspapers, 2 newsletters, 15 registered blogs.
  • In the headline: no articles
  • Major mentions: 2 articles, both registered blogs.
  • 3 or more major mentions: 2 registered blogs.
Because editors will likely ask, the three newspapers that mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica are:
  • Jonathan Dee, “All the News That’s Fit to Print Out,” The New York Times, 1 July 2007, Section 6, p. 34.
  • John Hind, “Observer Magazine: What's the word TL; DR,” The Observer, 5 June 2005, p. 7.
  • Neva Chonin, “Sex and the City,” The San Francisco Chronicle, p. 20.
I cross-checked the results with Factiva and Google News. All trivial mentions, as the above. Google Books offers two hits, both of which appear to be trivial mentions as well as likely false positives. JSTOR and Google Scholar make no mention of the subject at all. The bottom-line is that there isn't really anything to work with.
Overall, I think that the subject (at this time) unfortunately fails
WP:NOTABILITY for a Wikipedia entry. Sorry, J Readings (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, I'm responding to the request from the anon IP (86.31.102.215). The above search results are the total pool of independent, third-party reliable sources from commonly accepted search engines used for Wikipedia good article creation. It would nice if there were more sources generated by these search engines. There simply aren't. J Readings (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just proves that the search was faulty - it missed major reliable sources that are already cited in the article. Search engine hits don't prove notability (this subject has about 150,000 of them), and a lack of search engine hits certainly doesn't prove lack of notability. If we wanted to base notability on a search engine we could have a bot do that. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree. I believe you're referring to a plain vanilla "google" search, correct? That doesn't have anything to do with the pool of independent, third-party reliable sources that I mentioned. Google searches can generate anything from spam to unregistered blogs to personal websites with absolutely no editorial oversight.
WP:RS. As for the other sources mentioned in the article, frankly, they were neither "major" nor devoted to the subject. Wikipedia guidelines require a demonstration of notability based on articles written entirely or mostly about the subject. Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia Dramatica has not enjoyed that kind of coverage yet. Regards, J Readings (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\[reply
]
Thanks for the info on that search - that will be very useful for my usual business of writing articles! But when I referred to faulty methodology, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that it seems to have missed the two of the three most significant sources, both major mainstream news sources that are national in scope:
National Nine News (related to MSN). That's not a good hit rate. Better to adjust the test to accurately measure the facts than to deny facts that don't fit the test. Wikidemo (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply. Hmmm. Interesting issue. I'm really not part of the
verifiability, doesn't it? Again, it's not about the google hits for me. It's about finding material that complies with policies and guidelines. And it's a shame, really. Personally, I'd like very much to vote "keep" for this article. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Sweet Jesus Keep.
    WEB are guidelines, not stuff set in stone. Please stop the insanity. Also, there is an inevitability argument. You know if this is deleted today, this article is going to be here eventually, so might as well be now. What difference does it make? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The difference is that it doesn't currently meet the requirements for inclusion. You may well be right, but we have inclusion requirements for a reason; why should this article be exempt from them? Horologium (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we can have an article about Fred Bauder's wiki,
IAR was created. Deleting this would be nonsense since it is going to exist at some point. It has a good start and with special attention, it will get better. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • To be fair, he's been around since July 2005 with 567 article edits... so at least he's not a SPA.
    t/e 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The arguments for deletion of this article as explained in the March DRV, which were ultimately deemed appropriate, went like so:
  • ED does not have a sufficient number of sources to guarantee an unbiased article.
  • ED carries several hateful, defamatory, and inaccurate articles about Wikipedia editors.
I am sympathetic with the second argument, but only in light of the first. If ED is non-notable it would indeed be hurtful to people to have an article for it on Wikipedia. It would lend legitimacy to a website which self-admittedly is not interested in telling the truth.
However, if ED is notable and we can write a good article about it, Wikipedia would be doing a great service to the people harassed by ED and the world at large. It would provide an unbiased and accurate description of ED, based not on someone's personal opinion or on the website itself but rather on secondary sources, and it would serve to counterbalance the confusion and misguidance that arises from reading ED's description of itself. In short, if it is possible to have a good article, then it is useful to have a good article, so the "never!" argument which is not based in Wikipedia's policies should be discounted.
There are now additional sources which both demonstrate ED's notability and certify the NPOV status of the recreated article. Thus, without reservation I submit this opinion and I hope this article will be an excellent example of Wikipedia's time-tested policies and goals producing their desired effect on a controversial subject. Shii (tock) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only for lulz but its cool to point sh*t to and keep it far from mainspace. Sick of lolcat reminding me that we can't link to external ED, so please keep it in mainspace. -- EhsanQ (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec with Shii above, agreeing with every word - the only reason I'm posting is because I already typed all of this)

    Close call, this one. The amount of source material that seems to exist is hovering right at the (gray) border between notable and non-notable. Applying the notability criterion to the letter, we need multiple, non-trivial mentions from reliable sources. We've got multiple non-trivial sources, but only one is reliable. We've got multiple reliable sources, but only one is non-trivial. Of course, IAR says, "the letter of the rule is interesting and useful, but always consider: what's the best thing to do, to make the encyclopedia better?"

    I think Wikipedia is a little bit better with an ED article than without one, at the present time, and here's why: A Wikipedia article can be kept neutral and accurate, and can enable Internet users to make their own decisions about whether they want to visit ED. In other words, we can fulfill our mission to educate. If someone who would be truly offended by their content is wondering what ED is, I think it's good that they can look it up on Wikipedia, and make an informed decision that they do, or do not, want to go there. I think that's better than having them Google ED, go straight to it, and be presented with a featured article or picture about something they really didn't want to see.

    The reason to delete an article for non-notability would be that we can't obtain enough reliable information to maintain an encyclopedia article. I don't think that's true in this case; we have enough to maintain a healthy stub.

    In every previous discussion I've recommended we delete the article. This time I recommend keep. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on the current form of the article, I'm seeing references to the non-trivial third-party sources that WP:WEB and WP:N demands. Once I saw The Observer, that was enough, never mind MSNBC, Global, the Chicago Tribune, etc. I could care less about the content of the site. 23skidoo (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject had no claim for notability. The site itself was encouraging vandals for Wikipedia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously, the nomination itself and the
    WP:AN
    post has flared up the WikiDrama a lot. The more WikiDrama we have, the more that editors from both Uncyclopedia and ED are going to make more mean, satrical jokes about us. Period. Probably editors at ED are partying write now because of this debate, and Uncyclopedia is probably too. Look at it this way, editors here are leaving Wikipedia right now because of this senseless WikiDrama, so please close this case ASAP.
Face it, if you were to delete every article just because it is based on the harassment of Wikipedians, you would probably delete Myspace, Facebook, Uncyclopedia etc. There is no point in deleting notable websites based on harrassment from vandals and ED editors per
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
.
To the point, we should keep this article because it has meet the standards of notability (third-party resources) and it has been mentioned numerous times on the news. PrestonH 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth all the drama. Delete and be gone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't care whether the article is kept or not, but for those that don't want an article because it would draw attention to the site, the drama over if it should be banned from Wikipedia has drawn more attention to it than when it had an article. ED got tons of press coverage and a lot more traffic and visitors after it was banned because due to human nature about things being banned. There was a psychologist who wrote a book about it and I read it, though I don't remember either the psychologist or the book except it might have been slightly related to NLP. If ED hadn't been banned here and everyone arguing about it which has gone on for years, the site would have been less known. William Ortiz (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the other way around. The WP article draws EDers here. It brings the drama here as they try to decide what ED content is worth mentioning, etc, etc. I don't really care how much traffic they get but until it's notable and encyclopedic, it's just another non-notable wannabe meme that is simply an inappropriate WP article. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, we don't know whether drama over deletion debates brings more attention to the site than a simple article would do. As long as we're simply guessing about that, we might as well admit it. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then Delete and salt and stop having deletion debates. Certainly having an article isn't going to eliminate the drama, in fact it will become a troll magnet. Or improve the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that, "delete and salt and stop having deletion debates," an option. If we delete it, it will keep coming back. The site's notability is increasing, not decreasing. It is not necessary that the article become a troll magnet. Let's show that we can be neutral and accurate, even about ED. If we don't act dramatic about it, then it won't be a drama magnet. Let's show that we can deal with trolling attempts in a measured, professional, de-escalatory manner. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you think we can somehow stop it from being a troll magnet when it's an article when we obviously couldn't control it when it was deleted? we don't have the resources (or desire) to fight the amount of trolling that would will occur with an article. It's much easier to fight it when it's just an administrative action (close deletion debates, delete recreated content, block editors that keep adding it, etc). But deciding whether content should be deleted from the article is much more difficult. This site is simply not notable enough today for an article and should be deleted on that grounds. It's particular penchant for creating drama means that it should be salted as well. --DHeyward (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have much worse articles for trolling; can we just salt the whole Middle East section of the encyclopedia? (Please?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is interesting, notable and sourced. Let's not be offended by criticisms. Such sites only increase the popularity of WP.Biophys (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't know where people got the idea that a supposedly reliable encyclopedia can delete articles because they don't like the subject. If this were anything else, there'd be practically no debate. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are not in the business of deciding what might or might not interest Wikipedia's readers nor should we delete it because it will be an article that'll cause a "huge headache". It's as notable as the all those
    high schools and highways so I don't see how we can claim to be a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia when this article keeps getting deleted.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 06:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment This is an abusive process. Everyone participating in it knows that. I am not expecting you to recognise it here but if you have thought about this for even a second, you know that this page would never have been protected or be up for deletion if a) Encyclopedia Dramatica did not attack some wikipedia editors and b) People associated with the site did not sometimes troll this wiki. This deletion debate is clearly an abuse of process. There is not any question of the notability of this site, nor of the need to put a link to the site on its page. This AfD and the discussion on the article's talk page are saddening for a much more important reason however: The majority of the people participating are serious, positive contributors to Wikipedia. These people are spending literally hundreds of hours between them splitting hairs over this. I have never vandalized Wikipedia or trolled its talk pages, however I know some people associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica and the GNAA. They are euphoric and hysteric over processes like this, for 2 reasons: People on both sides of the debate are spending huge amounts of time fighting each other instead of improving the encyclopedia. If you don't like this article, try and live with it; if you do want to keep it, try and live with its absence. Your time could be massively better spent focussing on something else. Secondly, the trolls absolutely love to see a vocal minority get upset about articles like this, because they know that this is because their trolling has managed to anger and offend. This is the reason trolls get up in the morning. If noone tried to do things like remove this article and the GNAA one, they wouldn't receive positive confirmation that vandalism and trouble-making is still so successful, day in and day out, on some of their targets on this website.
I know that people will respond to this post reasoning and debating the ins and outs of this post. My point is, don't. You are infinitely more likely to have any positive effect if you click 'Random page' on the left, learn about something new and try to improve its grammar/syntax. Or just stand up from your computer and go for a walk.
As pointed out above, I have a reasonably large list of (positive) edits, however I am posting anonymously because I dont want to be tarred with the brush of someone who tried to speak reasonably on this issue. 86.27.233.17 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While my personal opinion on this particular website is that it could just as well be blasted to kingdom come (I would not mind to be the one to pull the trigger), it doesnt change the fact that it seems to have received sufficient media coverage to comply to
    WP:IHATEIT topic. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The site clearly has many non-trivial mentions in the media, as well as major traffic. Impin | {talk - contribs} 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 4

  • Comment: Just a reminder about some facts No matter how many editors state the contrary, facts are not up for election. No matter how many editors repeat the opposite, these remain facts -- not opinions, interpretations, suggestions, analysis -- just the facts that nobody gets to choose. So to advance the process, it might be best to keep the following in mind:
    1. WP:IDONTLIKEIT
      is an argument that an essay recommends we don't use in deletion discussions.
    2. WP:ILIKEIT
      is an argument that the same essay recommends we don't use in deletion discussions.
    3. WP:N
      . Any article about a website that either meets WP:WEB or WP:N notability standards should not be deleted for a notability reason. Any article that does not meet those standards is supposed to have a damn good reason for being kept.
    4. You need more than just a bunch of sources to meet the notability standards for either guideline. Both require that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (quote from WP:WEB; WP:N says the same)
    5. In the italicized quote just above, non-trivial is one of the standards that sources have to meet. WP:WEB defines trivial coverage partly as a brief summary of the nature of the content (Criteria section, third bullet)
    6. In the italicized quote just above, multiple non-trivial sources is a requirement.
    7. The MSN Nine Network source has a total of 15 short sentences that describe this website. More than any other source.
    8. The North Adams Transcript has a total of 2 sentences that describe this website.
    9. The Wired article has a total of 2 phrases in two sentences describe it.
    10. Gawker article: 3 sentences on it.
    11. No other source has more.
    12. Notability guidelines are not absolutes. For instance, the phrase "presumed to be notable" is used at the top of
      WP:N
      . The word presumed is defined by WP:N: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. So "presumed" isn't a back door for getting out of the notability requirements.
    13. WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines, not just rules, and they can be treated with common sense and the occasional exception according to the standard box at the top of the WP:N page. The words "occasional exception" are linked to
      Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules
      which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (I'm editing this to add the following:) According to this, ignoring a "rule" is to be done only for this specific purpose.
    14. Consensus from a large number of Wikipedians created the notability guidelines.
    15. There are a large number of Wikipedians here who want to keep ED as an article.
    16. There has been no consensus formed explicitly to overturn WP:WEB or WP:N in this case.
    17. Both sides have made the argument that Wikipedia would be better off if their preference were followed.
    18. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators tells closing administrators how to judge consensus (in the Rough consensus section). It states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
    19. The News Review source has 5 sentences. (((hat tip to User talk:12.32.217.24 post at 17:52, just below; added
      talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))))[reply
      ]
    • Given all this, why should Wikipedia make an exception to its notability guidelines for this article? (((additional sentence as noted within the comment
      talk) 16:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You forgot about this non-trivial article http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760.--12.32.217.24 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's a five sentences article in a reliable but small circulation paper devoted entirely to ED, obvioulsy not trivial. If you look at the context it's not a content summary style web guide, but rather an effort to bring something to the readers' attention - hey, note this. While we're counting sentences, Nina Chonin's article devoted 31 out of 47 sentences (by my count) to a notorious incident that happened on ED. Her extended discussion of a scandal that enveloped the site is non-trivial coverage however you cut it. The Nine News site's 15 sentences are not short - they range from 11 to 39 words, longer than normal. One would be hard pressed to call even 2-3 sentences about a subject "trivial". Newspapers are far more anti-trivia than Wikipedia, and their compact stories don't go off on 2 sentence tangents. Content sites are publishers. What makes a publisher notable? Their effect on the world is the reach and scope of what they publish at least as much as the organization itself. Just as the measure of a scholar, newspaper, or artist is their works, not their actions, the same with a publisher like ED. We don't cover the building that houses the server, or the rudimentary Mediawiki software, or even the founders and investors. Instead we cover the content and how it affects people. It's not obvious whether Norton is arguing for or against notability of ED - the list of observations could fall on either side, but I detect some hostility to ED so I assume there is a personal opinion against. I think it's obvious that by the formal notability guidelines WP:N and WP:WEB (which has its problems) ED is notable, hardly open to serious question unless one would wikilawyer the guidelines to the point where they describe something that certainly is not how Wikipedia works. We can and often do look beyond the strict rules to answer the basic question - does this material belong in the encyclopedia? Does it help Wikipedia present an encyclopedic treatment of the world? That's not overturning or ignoring the guidelines, that's interpreting the matter in light of the guidelines. This question cuts both ways. On the one hand, ED has engaged a lot of people and is obviously a substantial, successful, money-making website (see who advertises there). On the other the content is mostly fluff. Good or bad, funny or not, hateful or refreshing, it's not going to win a Pulitzer Prize anytime soon. Possibly a Webby, which would put this issue to bed. Personally I would say that the encyclopedic purpose of covering the state of the Web and Internet culture favors including this site. I don't know the statistics but I would guess the vast majority of the top 5,000 Alexa sites are covered here. Omission of a major site becomes a gap, not a matter of careful pruning. Wikidemo (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hard pressed to call even 2-3 sentences about a subject "trivial" -- see Fact 5; Nina Chonin's article mentioned ED once as the place where the prankster she was writing about happened to post; What makes a publisher notable? -- see Fact 3; It's not obvious whether Norton is arguing for or against notability of ED, as an expert on what Noroton is arguing, I can tell you that I'm arguing, in that post, for constructive discussion & adherence to WP standards, and I said in my "delete" post that I'd withdraw my opposition if adequate sourcing is found; by the formal notability guidelines WP:N and WP:WEB (which has its problems) ED is notable, -- see Fact 18.
talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thx for the response, levity, and even-handed approach. I think the discussion is rather constructive and remarkably civil, more so than quite a few AfDs I could point to on uncontroversial subjects. There's that saying "easy cases make bad law". Here, a hard case potentially raises awareness, strong good faith arguments on both sides by experienced, passionate Wikipedians. That lets us stress test the notability guidelines and what they mean, how to use them. Lessons learned are applicable when we question whether a new book, or local celebrity, etc., should be here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list starts well, being entirely fact based, but the conclusory statement (why should Wikipedia make an exception to its notability guidelines for this article?) doesn't accurately represent the argument. First of all, it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria. Reasonable people can (and do) differ in opinion on this point. Second, even if it does not meet the criteria, as I've said before, that is not an automatic categorization of non-notability. It merely means that the arguments for notability for this article are not explicity spelled out. Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability. I think it's disingenous to present that conclusory statement as the only possible conclusion from these facts. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about the final question in my post, but it's an actual, sincere question, not a rhetorical one. If my facts are solid, then I think that question should be answered in order to get the best Keep argument. Since this discussion is supposed to be closed by an admin looking to the best (or at least the "acceptable") arguments on both sides (and discounting others, as per what's cited in Fact 18), then paying attention to facts about the sourcing, facts about policy and facts about what Wikipedia says is an acceptable argument should get us into a more constructive discussion. Reasonable people can differ, but the more facts they can mutually agree on will probably narrow their differences and sharpen their logic. Arguments for notability need to be either explicitly spelled out or easily inferred. Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability. That depends on the details. Some things are open to interpretation (see my next point), but either the standards in WP:WEB or WP:N are met or they're not, if they're not and you still want to keep, you want an exception. it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria but the criteria aren't open to a whole lot of debate because you can only interpret non-trivial so far before an interpretation looks ridiculous, and the faster we can stop wasting time on counter-factual arguments and unconvincing interpretations, the better. One side's going to lose this, and the more facts we agree on, the less bitter the pill that the losing side has to swallow.
    talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • AfD discussions that I've seen, especially the more contested ones, always revolve around what you can explicitly prove meets the standards, or whether your reasonable interpretation of the standards has a consensus. Other arguments can be made, but in a contentious AfD, closing admins look more closely at what can be linked to criteria. But I haven't participated in AfDs that much recently, and I don't participate in all areas. As for sentence count, see my response to Smashville just below.
    talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is nothing in any Wikipedia guideline or policy that requires a non-trivial source to have a minimum number of words or sentences. So, given all that you've added, why should we ignore the guidelines merely because of the size of the sources. The ninemsn article and the News Review article are very, very clearly non-trivial. Unless you can show me the focus of those articles is something other than ED. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paying attention to the guidelines means not calling a source "non-trivial" if it resembles a brief summary of the nature of the content. We also have, in Footnote 2 of
talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've participated in a number of deletion discussions on various topics with an open mind, and I would nearly always consider a five-sentence article about a subject in a major publication, or five substantive sentences on the thing in a longer source, to be a non-trivial mention that would add weight to notability. Not enough standing alone, but something that adds to the argument. I interpret "trivial" to mean exactly that, trivial. It's strain of the language to call five sentences in a newspaper article trivial. Newspapers don't waste words. They rarely spend more than a sentence to say someone died, or founded a company, or is somebody's father. If a newspaper goes out of its way to explain something, and that's the sole point or one of only a few points in the article, that is not a trivial mention. The "brief summary of the content" example is in a sentence that doesn't even parse, but it's apparently meant to discourage web directories. It's not an edict that content is less important than other things. Nowhere do these guidelines say that to be non-trivial is to address "the subject directly and in detail." That's not what non-trivial means, and it would impose a higher standard. If you look at WP:WEB it is not a precise instrument. You just have to read what it says and go with it. We don't get anywhere wikilawyering the Wikipedia guidelines by positing that they redefine common words. Examples in Wikipedia guidelines are haphazard - the people who write (and often edit war) over the examples are not trying to establish an analytical framework for each example to have a zone of influence, with the outcome judged by which example it is closest to. That's only one of many ways to understand examples, not a rule. The guidelines are not written by lawyers and just don't stand up to that kind of scrutiny. Overall, when an Internet site has articles written about it in several major publications, as with this one, it would be quite a stretch of logic to say that does not fit the language of the notability guideline.Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're at a point where we disagree on what "trivial" is in this context. I'll leave it at that.
talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a false argument a) because we aren't even supposed to take the Alexa rank into consideration and b) because if we did, a high Alexa rank (2,250 out of over 100 million) would seem to do the exact opposite. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the weakest argument in the entire AFD. Even when we did use Alexa as a criteria for inclusion of websites, which was years ago, any site under 5,000 was easilly within what would "justify or connote notability". I'm pretty sure I remember Carlossuarez voting to keep articles on sites with vastly lower Alexa rankings... --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't personally feel the sources stand up to scrutiny, but arguing the point isn't worth the trouble, from the looks of it. Disgusted Keep and watch it fester. For the "lulz," apparently. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really can't be bothered to argue your point, then posting an opinion which is the exact opposite of what you actually believe is a little silly. It's also a little unfair to say everybody voting keep is doing it "For the lulz". --Tombomp (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not !voting Keep for the "lulz" as you said, but I'm looking at this article objectively and from a NPOV and surprising the soucres offer enough about ED to give it notability. The hell with the
talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Also not voting keep for the "lulz" (I'm guessing that's a variation on LOLs...). Voting because the article is sourced and meets
WP:ILIKEIT category. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So ED finally has an article on Wikipedia, and? Not to be rude Tony, and I know you mean everything in good faith, but why does it matter if the site has an article. The sources give the site just enough notability to be included her and honestly if they are, good for them. It's not a matter of winning or losing a battle with "ED trolls" (not your words, but I've heard the phrase used), it's a matter of doing what's right based on our guidelines. I've been proud to say that when I edit here I check my opinions at the door and try my damnedest to look at everything from a NPOV, and this article is no exception.
talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
See Fact 5
talk) 20:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
See my response. You're just arguing semantics now. The ninemsn article even has quotes. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Abstain. I choose not to voice my opinion at this time. -Vezaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.148.60 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This should go the way of GNAA. No notability whatsoever outside of Wikipedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the two articles that are devoted to it above, of course... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles, or eight or whatever, constitutes a clear establishment of non-notability. If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources, not just blogs and not just brief mentions in passing. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um you have read
WP:WEB yes? They say nothing about "If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources". JoshuaZ (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It says "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". What constitutes "multiple" and "non-trivial" is entirely a matter of subjective debate, and my two cents worth is two is trivial and multiple means in the hundreds. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 5

Comment: Could you please rephrase the question? My understanding is that editing Wikipedia is based on a consensus formed around commonly accepted policies and guidelines. Without them, chaos ensues. Why would we want to ignore policies and guidelines in an AfD? Incidentally, I agree with
independent, reliable third-party sources. Everything else is just unhelpful noise for a closing admin, in my opinion. Regards, J Readings (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Is the question basically, "How would deleting the article improve the encyclopedia?"? That seems to be a fair one, seeing as our policies and guidelines exist to document successful ways of improving the encyclopedia. Per Ignore all rules, the power of rules is conditioned on their success in guiding us to improve the project. When they don't do that, they aren't really binding.

That might not be the question that Nwwaew meant, but I think it's one that's worth asking nonetheless. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first I'd like to say good luck to the brave soul who closes this AfD and is thrust immediately into another DRV (because, really, we know it's coming, right?). Anyhoo, I'm checking to see of the nominator's rationale is valid. Xe says it fails
    WP:WEB
    , it adds value to the encyclopedia. So, here we go.
Test Criterion Analysis Result
WP:NOTADVERTISING ...is, um, not advertising... The article seems pretty neutral in its coverage, does not have the tone of an advertisement, and is sourced. Pass
WP:DENY ...denies recognition...
WP:DENY
is an essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if it needs to cover websites where trolls and vandals gather to advance that goal, it will. Whether it denies recognition is irrelevant. 		Pass

WP:WEB (must meet only one criterion)

...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself... except... [m]edia re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site... [t]rivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. Please note that I could check only the sources with online links. This is the best: [10] gives enough information that I would call it non-trivial, but not extensive. [11] and [12] provide a only brief summary of the nature of the content. The others only mention the subject or provide a very brief summary. Again, I could only check the sources with online links, but I was only able to see that ED was the subject of one... Fail
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Not that I've heard. Fail
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for [t]rivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) ED is self-published. Fail
WP:N's General notability guideline ...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. While [13] and [14] do provide only brief summaries, etc. individually, together with [15] and the minor sources, I think that ED does pass this test. With WP:N, there isn't the restriction that each source must itself be non-trivial, where trivial includes a brief summary etc., and these sources can snowball into significant coverage. Pass
  • As you can see, I haven't been able to assess all of the sources. Whether I would choose to keep or delete the article depends on the coverage by those sources for which there is no link and that I have not seen. If someone else can indicate that the coverage by at least one of those sources would pass WP:WEB criterion 1, the article should be kept. If someone else can indicate that the coverage by at least one of those sources would not pass WP:WEB criterion 1, the article should be deleted. If no one can say what's in those sources, then that information is not verifiable, and the article should be deleted. WODUP 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty obvious at this point that the result is going to be keep, and at a current !vote of more than 2:1 (about 100/40), and this being one of the most discussed AfD's of all time, I don't think a DelRev would be appropriate. Z00r (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I don't know. I think someone will put it up for DRV no matter what happens. I just have that feeling. WODUP 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ZOOr, see
    talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: I feel at this point ED could have entire articles dedicated to it on CNN, and be one of the most popular websites of all time, and the decision will still be to delete it just because
talk 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrary section 6
  • Keep, article demonstrates notability through citations better than more than half the articles in a random sample of 10 non-stub articles. I also find convincing the argument that it will continue to get more notable over time, so it's not a matter of if we keep this article but when. — PyTom (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's the best documentation of the *chan subculture, which is quite relevant to the Internet (I'm not making an argument from WP policy—the rest of you can take care of that quite well), even if it is written in the highly... non-encyclopedic fashion of said subculture. —bersl2 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as keep, please. 78.34.137.171 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. For such an apparently notable website, I was surprised by the lack of coverage from reliable sources - essentially, there's one source provided that provides what could be called 'significant' coverage of ED. I have no prejudice against having an article on them, but despite all the 'sources' listed here, they just don't seem to have received enough attention from the media to justify it. Terraxos (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We've also been on CNN twice. Once (fleetingly) on a Jews Did 9/11 special on Paula Zahn Now and once cited on their show 'It's News To Me' for our definition of hipster. --OldDirtyBtard 84.61.12.187 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It passes the core notability guideline. It's difficult for me to see the deletion-drama around this article as unrelated to... well... butthurt on the part of targeted Wikipedosians. Sorry, but it's notable and the article has no significant problems, let alone unfixable problems necessitating deletion. <eleland/talkedits> 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it serves as a hub for cads and blackguards but turning away from it won't make it go away. The sheer over-excitement it seems to be causing here suggests that it as at least notable within this community. I looked around and memes from 4chan, anime, and bizarre jokes my students made that I never understood before suddenly became clear. Their interactions with the Church of Scientology have resulted in a few news mentions. Wasn't there a Fox News story on them a while back about blowing up vans? First time to ever vote in one of these. Sorry if I rambled and missed the point. 98.200.35.25 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a Fox News story on them a while back about blowing up vans? HAXXORS ON STEROIDS PWNS J00 WITH VANS

also

keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.122.11 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Wow - a few minutes on Google was instructive. Surely you can't be hated by this many people and not be notable. 98.200.35.25 (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If it weren't notable, would so many people on here really care one way or the other? There are also countless examples of things much less notable (MUCH less) that have pages. How many times must we have this debate? Broooooooce (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section 7

  • To be fair, ED attacks several individuals, not merely Wikipedia in its entirety. But that is still not an argument to delete, at least not at AfD. Those who prefer what imho is a somewhat high-handed hush-up approach should pursue this at a more appropriate venue, e.g.
    WP:VPP. 78.34.133.49 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Thanks for posting these links. Possible copyright infringement issues aside, these three cases finally explain why
    WP:N. Surely, no one here is seriously going to argue that screenshots (assuming those were even of the ED, nothing was displayed on the screen to indicate they were) are prime examples of "non-trivial coverage" in the mainstream media, when the ED was never even the subject of these stories. Better to focus the arguments on sources that at least discuss the ED. But in any case, I do appreciate finally learning why LexisNexis never registered these stories about the ED. They weren't about the ED. J Readings (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

--Piepie (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP-ED saga would be great material for a meta-Wikipedia but not so much for Wikipedia itself. Either way, the results of this will end up on ED itself. Now, whether the WP admins decide to continue feeding the trolls by denying them a single legitimate page, we shall see. —bersl2 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. Someone's doing one: encyclopediadramatica(dot)com/Wikipedia_Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica

--Piepie (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While certainly not a liked article by many users on this site, it is the subject of secondary sources and passes our inclusion standards (with the exception of IAR). --Oakshade (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Because you don't keep anything else that ED has, at least keep ED as it's an important resource for al things internet and funny. 76.245.104.229 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:WEB, as demonstrated above. There isn't a whole lot more to say. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Its notability derives from WP's notability, ironically. Because its well-sourced from RS's, makes me think this is notable enough for its own article, even though I don't know too much about the site. I also tend to favor keep due to the reasons articulated above. The keep people have made rational arguments for the most part while those who want to delete it seem to have a personal stake of simply not liking the content of this website. That is not a valid reason to delete and amounts to censorship. I've seen too much deletion efforts based on "I dont like it" and censorship attempts at WP, and this makes me want to come here to say keep.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LOL INTERNET shasYarr!/T|C 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lolwut? Celarnor Talk to me 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this AfD is serious business. shasYarr!/T|C 08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Encyclopædia Dramatica, like it or not, is a website with a significant amount of users. It's been mentioned in several news programs, referenced in the local rags (at least here in australia where they gained notoriety for their "Project Chanology"), and thus can be considered notable, even if some of the admins here have a personal vendetta because of the humiliation they have recieved from ED users who "did it for the lulz". If you guys delete this, you basically break your own rules. But then again, it's not like that hasn't happened before on Wikipedia, so that last argument probably doesn't count for much. Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced, and appears to have non-trivial coverage in the so-called Real World - In my opinion, it satisfies
    WP:WEB; even if it still could be somewhat better, it's still better than it was before. "May attack Wikipedians" argument is utter rubbish, as seen so many times before; Wikipedia's goal is neutrality, and I'd say that if the idea is to cover topics neutrally without opinionated comments, the other side of the coin would be to not limit inclusion to Wikipedia based on opinions, either; otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles like (Insert blatant unfurling if the Godwin Flag) neo-Nazism, because it happens to cover a topic that may promote hate toward a group of people. If we delete arguments based on that alone, where would you draw a line? Let's let go of the tiresome drama and let's quit trying to kill this article because of politics. The bottom line is this, no matter how you bake the cake: we set the bar somewhere and this thing narrowly leaps above it. If this thing gets deleted, I see it as a victory for evil wikilawyering of most foul kind, not as a victory for interpreting Wikipedia's content guidelines. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep It's a well written article about a website that many journalistic authorities consider important enough to report about. I know that many wikipedia admins/mods hate the ED people because they stalked them or stoled their megahertz or whatever, but I think it is long past time to move beyond that and stop trying to delete this page. The more we fight over this, the more of a drama magnet it becomes. The scientology thing is a clear indicator of their relevance. We really can't keep out a website that affects major real world events, especially if wikipedia is going to continue to host all sorts of obscure in-universe trivia from games and cartoons. I mean, there are pages here that give us detailed biographies of minor comic book villains. If that sort of crap (which I fully support keeping) makes the cut for notability, pretty much anything does.

As an aside, I really dont understand the point of being so strict with notability. It isn't like there is really a size limit to how big wikipedia can get so I don't see what we gain by arbitrarily deleting some articles while keeping others. Yeah, I get that wikipedia isn't a "star trek wiki"/"warhammer wiki"/"spider man wiki" but I don't see what really gets broken by letting those topics exist within wikipedia. It isn't like they exclude other articles by virtue of existing. Beerslurpy (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dude, it's because some wikipedia editors have their panties in a twist over the site. They are being juvenile and petty, that's all. They hate being mocked and are full of themselves. You think they would go through all this trouble for any other entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.237.252 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - References appear to assert notability. I see nothing wrong with this article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - once upon a time, and the first times this was an entry, it was not notable. Now, especially with Project Chanology in the news and a current event, the sarcastic encyclopedia of internet culture is notable. It's not pretty, but then we don't have to like it. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or delete unencyclopedia and about 1,000 other sites for god's sake 71.56.237.252 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since you raise the subject, may I mention the fundamental difference between
notability guidelines. Personally, I remain unconvinced that the sources offered are anything but "trivial coverage". I understand that some disagree, but I suspect that we will be forced to revisit the wording of the notability guidelines to avoid this kind of disagreement in the future. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 20:03, 19 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1171509798"