Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8

< May 7	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 9 >

8 May 2008

Wayne Nelson Corliss – endorse deletion.-Wafulz (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC) – Wafulz (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page was speedied

WP:CSD#G10. It had a {{hangon}} with an explanation on talk (I added both). I think this is close enough to notable (meaning it may be) to warrant AfD. Elliskev 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, hmmm...
WP:DEL to cover the speedy deletion of this. I'm going to assume it was written in a neutral tone and suggest a restore and list at AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse, assuming the G10 was valid (I have no way to be sure). Why not rewrite a neutral version? That should solve the issue. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was very neutral and sourced (only two sources had made it in however - it was a stub). Is there any way to get an admin to pull it up so we can see? --Elliskev 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. G10 wasn't really relevant but A7 would have been.
talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. In line with Stifle's comment above, circumventing G10 would lead me to consider A7. And BLP still concerns me, as the man has not actually been convicted of the crime(s) for which he is accused, and there was no balanced presentation; only that he was a suspect apprehended, and while it was reported clearly, it would undoubtedly inspire further conviction in the court of public opinion before the legal process is permitted to run its course. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs.) Regarding notability after a presumed conviction, I would consider an AFD to discuss the notability of a criminal convicted of a (disturbingly) non-notable crime, and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable number of times and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable level of severity. The google hits I got was 64 (one of them was this article), and most of these are press that repeat what other sources report, such as AP. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I think G10 was fine as a reason, but A7 will do it also. I don't see evidence at this time that this merits AFD consideration.
GRBerry 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse deletion He hasn't still been convicted, the article would be changing with every news article about the trial, with no reliable sources specially if the trial summary is secret. Once the trial ends, an AfD can see if he is notable enough to have his own article or should just be included on a list of famous convicted pederasts or, who knows, a list of people accused wrongly of pederasty :P --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice The final version of the article, even with refs, was definitely A7-able in my mind. He's suspected of rape. What about the case stands out that it merits an article? That being said, if events develop that an article can be written, by all means let one be created.
96 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Critical Watch – Contested prod has been restored – Davewild (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Didn't have a watch on the page and missed the PROD warning, can re-edit page and clean up links once it is restored. Nelsonbu (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just asked for it to be restored, being a PROD deletion. Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pink (Mindless Self Indulgence album) – Restored as contested prod. Non-admin closure. UsaSatsui (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Contains important information to fans, can have disclaimer regarding issues surrounding tracklisting requiring more sources. EarthBoundX5 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - deleting admin notes that deletion was after an expired prod. No
talk) 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: Just to be clear, the reason in the deletion log was not my reason for deleting it. My reason for deleting it was simply due to the expired PROD, and the reason listed in the log is the reason that was on the PROD tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A reasonably extensive search found no reliable sources (and none were provided). The purported album might be important to fans (though we have nothing to substantiate this), but we have no
talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore. It's an contested prod, so it gets restored. Discussions about notability can be had at
AFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist at AfD. Oooopsie, lack of notability is not listed on the list of speedy deletion criteria at
~~WP:MUSIC~~. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Lack of verifiability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete. If UsaSatsui is correct on the procedure on this one (and I don't know), I'll send it right to AfD if someone doesn't beat me to it (or reliable sources don't suddenly appear). -
talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for pointing out this to us --Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - It looks like UsaSatsui is
talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Article restored: Absolutely no reason for Deletion Review on a PROD deleted article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

School alumni categories – leave them undeleted, possible relisting possible. (I noticed that the later CFD for a later discussion for a school in Baltimore had unanimous "delete" opinions before being closed due to this DRV, but with further discussion that may of course have changed). Like the last DRV I closed (Enc.Dram.), I disagree personally with the existence of such pages, since alumni lists in the school articles are easier to build and source, but my personal opinion does not trump consensus. We might note that WaltCip is wrong when he says "Consensus trumps policy", but DGG has the right idea when he says "consensus interprets policy" (as long as its within reason.) I have taken note of the
WP:V concerns, but note that the fact that categories lack citations and references is something true of all the categories we have on Wikipedia, so I don't think the WP:V policy is applied in that manner to categories. (Rather a citation in the article which is put into the relevant category is desirable/required in the long run, if this remains a problem for most of the categories, they will eventually become quite empty as the articles are removed from them.) – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Admin initially correctly closed the

talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Restore - Consensus trumps policy.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I wasn't going to chime in as closer on this one, but I take exception to the "consensus trumps policy" statement above. No, it doesn't. You can have unanimous support to keep an attack category, but at the end of the day it's gone. --Kbdank71 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consensus does not trump policy, but it does interpret it. The attack policy for example is applied strictly because such application has very strong consensus every time. DGG (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the categories in
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say vegetarianism is "crucial;" I said it was defining. And for all of your bluster about red herrings you have yet to rebut my point in the CFD that these categories are nothing but
talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn "consensus" decision and delete wtf? WP:V does trump the consensus at a CfD. It's supposed to be a fucking core policy. The interpretation at the CfD is too loose and makes WP:V ~~almost~~ totally irrelevant on discussion categories. This closing was faulty and should have been "delete the cats and add the sources articles to the school article". Actually, nobody has stated what purpose the category serves on the first place or what is the purpose of making an alphabetically sorted list of every person that ever set a foot on a Baltimore college (see my examples below), specially when you already have
WP:OVERCATegorization that is defended with no arguments backed on policy. Nobody has made a case of when a visitor to the encyclopedia would find this category useful. should have been a "delete per being empty categories after taking out unverified articles" like the original decision stated. Delete all the categories and restore them only one by one once you have 4 or 5 articles that verify assistance to that high school. Once they are created they can then be brought again to CfD for being irrelevant categories and then the info be added to the school article instead, but that was not the argument used on this CfD closure and the discussion would be out of place on DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

RESTORE categories on grounds that the deleting admin erred: Failing WP:V applies to the articles themselves not the category. DO go back and remove all articles from categories where the references do not support the alumnus status. THEN delete all categories that remain empty after the usual few days. After all of this is done, if there are any sparsely-populated categories - particularly those with only 1 or 2 alumni - nominate them for deletion individually. I fully expect 80-99% of these categories will disappear by virtue of being empty or having only 1 entry in them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh, isn't this just a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy? The closing admin states that out of 50 articles that he tested only one was properly sourced to be on the category. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The original nomination targeted categories containing 1,489 articles. A result derived from examining 3% of them isn't obviously correct for the other 97%. This discussion is perfectly appropriate. RossPatterson (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called

case selection to get a representative sample of the articles on the categories. Anyways, even with a not-very-random sampling, if you get 98% failure when examing 3% of the total population, you can probably assume that the total population has at least 80-90% failure (giving a very generous margin of error), unless you have chosen a terribly bad sample. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Overturn and delete, per Enric Naval. Neither verifiable nor remotely notable or useful categories.
talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Given the circumstances of this deletion I would recommend that for clarity, people would refrain from stating "endorse" or "overturn" on their own as it is unclear what exactly you wish to overturn or endorse without further clarification.
talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the categories (they are not currently deleted). Given the way articles are categorized, it is literally impossible for a category to be verifiable - there's no way to put source references in the category listing. However it is absolutely possible for the categorization of an individual article to be verifiable, and any category added to an article should be supported by a statement in the article and a source for that statement. As to the claim that of 50 articles only 1 was sourced, I can easily identify 50 that are sourced. Despite Kbdank71's regret, he did the right thing in reversing his own decision to delete. RossPatterson (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Admittedly those who favored retention in the CfD didn't give the
WP:V point much attention, but I don't think it's compelling. In most cases the alumni categorizations could be easily verified with a quick Google search. One might argue that citing such trivial (that is, trivial to verify) information as a subject's high school is overkill. In any case, though, it's at most an issue with the articles and not the categories. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore Categories cannot fail V. DGG (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the articles that were listed at the categories that failed WP:V for inclusion on the category. The closing admin had reasons to think that most articles on the category were unverified, which means that the category was making unverified claims of assistance to a certain high school on hundreds of articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kbank says that in 49 out of 50 articles checked the high school was not properly sourced. Did K try to find sources? THis is usually quite easy (for politicians, academics, film people, sporetspeople, media people ...) but very time-consuming to add an inline ref for a non-controversial detail such as school, college. There is a difference between unverified and unverifiable. Also there are over 2000 articles in these 73 categories, many of which have proper sources. I would be happy to check over the 50 if I knew which they were. (The
talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The
WP:BURDEN of proof of properly sourcing an article before including it on a category is on the editor that adds the article to the category. In this case, the closing admin found 49 that had not done the sourcing work. So, he had reasons to believe that the articles on the category were in its majority unsourced. It's not the responsability of the closing admin to go over 2000 articles to source every single on so the category doesn't get deleted and it's unreasonable to expect closing admins to make this sort of work. Editors are supposed to first source the articles correctly and *then* create the category and put the articles on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed. Except in this case we're dealing with an attempt to treat 73 categories as a unit. Some of those categories are so small as to seem useless (40 of them contain less than 10 articles, and 15 contain less than 5 articles), but some are quite large and the articles are well-cited (e.g., Category:Baltimore City College alumni, Category:Erasmus Hall High School alumni, Category:Stuyvesant High School alumni). We don't "kill them all and let God sort them out" on Wikipedia, do we? RossPatterson (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are talking bussiness :) Just make a list with the small categories so we can verify them, and save them from deletion, and then we nuke the big ones that have dozens of unverified articles (unless someone is willing to verify them article by article before the DRV ends). If you know of some category where you know for sure that all articles are sourced for attendance to the high school, please list it too and mark it as verified so we can make just a cursory check to make sure the sourcing is correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About sampling.... I checked the first category that you list
List_of_Baltimore_City_College_people, which is a total repetition of what the category lists, we can see that it is properly sourced and listed under "Science" (more proper context than the category), and that its source says "Bala, as he is known, is relieved to be out of Baltimore City College High School, where he resented the peer pressure to not excel.". So, his stay as Baltimore student is non-notable, and there are obvious advantages on letting people click on "Baltimore High School" and then clicking on the list of people, like the name of school being listed only on articles where the school is actually relevant to the article, instead of indiscriminately put at the bottom of everyone that has put a foot on the college as a student. These categories are just unverifiable repetitions of lists of people that can be easily sourced, and which give undue weight to ever having gone to a certain college in cases where this is not a notable event at all and it could have been any other college --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

And the above was on "A" which is at the start of the list and probably gets verified more often. Let's check the only entry at "U" "Uris attended schools in Norfolk, Virginia and Baltimore but never graduated from high school" Leon Uris. Hey, this looks fun, let's try "W":

Hugo_Weisgall studied at conservatory Peabody Institute and there is no mention or source of being a high college student on Baltimore.
Henry_West the only source on the article says that he was "was Maryland educated" (were there colleges on Maryland outside of Baltimore?)
John_Archibald_Wheeler is properly sourced
Alan_M._Wilner is a stub with no sources
Abel_Wolman no sources for studying college on Baltimore (altought, from context, he probably did study)
Charles_Erskine_Scott_Wood No mention of Baltimore on the whole article, the only reference to education is "Born in Erie, Pennsylvania, Wood graduated from West Point in 1874"

So, if this is what you call well-cited, then I want to see some serious proof that the categories are actually sourced. Notice that the samples I choosed have some article with huge WP:V issues for the inclusion on the category, and that there is no guarantee that the categories are not filled with articles with this sort of problems. And, no, I'm going to go trought 50 articles to source them all for a category with almost no utility at all, and much less go trought all the other 1439 articles to fix them. if you want to be able to say that the categories are well-cited, then go fix it yourself, since you are the one that wants to preserve the category. I take special offence on the cases where the stay on a Baltimore college is totally irrelevant to the article and is not mentioned anywhere. If the mention of the college is irrelevant, then the category is also irrelevant, and the proper place for the mention of that person is on
List_of_Baltimore_City_College_people where it is actually relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I was one of those who "pressured" (really?) Kbdank into his rethink. These categories aren't inherently unverifiable such as to violate policy. If any particular article fails to use the category correctly, then either a source can be added or the category removed. Deleting all the categories regardless is a
Bencherlite ^Talk 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You can't expect the closing admin to do this work for you. On its current state, the articles' inclusion on the categories was not verified, and a CfD is not about any particular article but about a category --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Quite aside from the fact that high school alumni categories are basically
WP:V, albeit indirectly: if the entries are all unreferenced, then proper category maintenance requires them to all be removed. And if that happens, then the category is empty and thus deletable. Bottom line, if a category doesn't have a single properly-referenced entry in it, then it's an invalid category. And then we come back to the fact that even if the entries are referenced, it's still essentially trivia which merits a list, not a category. And no, consensus doesn't trump policy, either. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:SOFIXIT — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - That's not the closing admin's work. On CfD he only has to assess if the cat ought to be deleted on its current state and he may give advice on what to do to restore them. People who want the categories back should fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To draw a few quotes from our easily-forgotten
      WP:V] have failed . . . [P]ages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept . . ." — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - It's not a single page that can easily be verified. As RossPatterson points above, the categories had a total of 1,489 articles. Suggesting that the nominator should make an attempt to bring them to compliance to
        WP:V is madness. I think that common sense requires to interpret that sentence from policy in proper context (aka, what the heck can possibly qualify as "all attempts" on this case apart from trying to verify a thousand and a half articles. Again, this is madness). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        1,489 sounds like quite a figure until we realize that deletion implicates 74 categories and detrements 1,489 articles. Improvement doesn't need to be a one-man task -- I'd be happy to pitch in, though quite frankly I think the current state of the articles is perfectly satisfactory. (As I said earlier, easily accessible information like school attendance is trivial to verify and generally not
        challenged or likely to be challenged.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Are you going to check regularly the categories to see that nobody adds unverified articles? This is not like an article, which can get watchlisted and then you can check the newest additions one by one and click on the sources. Maintaining this category verifiable is a *huge* trouble compared to keeping a list that already exists. About challenging, do you realize that any editor can add any unverified article that he wishes to any of the categories and that you will never notice unless you check the category list regularly? And those are 74 different categories that you have to check regularly for unverified articles, compared to watchlisting 74 articles. This is just
        WP:OVERCATategorizing for the sake of it, when there are "list of" articles that already handle the task on a way better manner, can be verified much more easily, can put persons on proper context (grouping by achievemnts on life rather than alphabetical order), etc. And the articles don't get detrimented at all because on those articles where the assistance to a Baltimore college is actually relevant', there is already a link to the college page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Is there something unique about alumni categories that calls for designated category maintainers, as opposed to regular categorization work by regular page editors? There's just no pertinent distinction between these categories and any others. One could certainly argue that category oversight in general is unsatisfactory, but that is a general issue that has nothing to do with these categories in particular. It may be true that the uncontroversial nature of these categories cause page editors to relax their verification standards, but this is only natural and proper -- we needn't give Category:Bolton High School alumni the same attention we do Category:Murderers.
        
        Given this, it follows that any energy we might spend maintaining categories or lists of alumni would be equally well spent doing categorization work in general. Click the Random Page link, study the categories you see, add sources or add/remove categories as appropriate -- it would be just as productive. Maintaining a list of alumni might be easier than maintaining a category of alumni, but in either case we might as well be working on categorization in general instead of arbitrarily narrowing our focus.
        
        Of course, you would be right in asserting that fewer categories means better category oversight -- just as fewer articles means higher article quality. But, again, this issue is completely general. We can't delete categories arbitrarily simply on this basis -- policy, editorial norms, and common sense require that we identify unique problem areas. Ambiguity, triviality, etc. are perfectly valid reasons to get rid of certain categories, but whether or not verifiability could constitute a proper justification, it doesn't have any unique application in this case. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See, this article is unnecessary, has a list that covers the topic better, has articles on it where the relevance is nil or where the claim is completely unsourced, its function is already covered by simply linking to the college name on the articles where the fact of having gone to the college is relevant or sourced, all time spent trying to maintain is time wasted since it serves no purpose. Oh, yeah, I forgot, nobody has explained what purpose does this category serve on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The admin didn't "assess if the cat ought to be deleted on its current state". No assessment appears to have been made on a category-by-category basis. When dealing with a large collection of categories, the standard of care should be high enough so as to not throw out the good with the bad. I know that sounds hard on Kbdank71, and I don't mean to be incivil, but it's the reason I support their now-regretted decision to change the closing to "keep". Personally, I think they did a good job making a tough choice. RossPatterson (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested compromise: relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica to the new title as a first round. Regarding listing this on AFD, I don't see a clear consensus here that this needs to be done immediately, but nor is there a consensus that AFD should not be used. I am leaving that matter up to individual editors. (Personally, I continue to have reservations about the website, and will probably vote to delete it if it is brought to AFD.) – Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

Before you instantly consider closing this as a disruptive request given that the last DRV was speedily closed, something happened overnight concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica's notability. Something big happened. Specifically, an article in a major Australian media outlet was published about ED. It is obviously a reliable source. It is clearly non-trivial coverage given that the article's primary subject is Enyclopedia Dramatica. Given the draft that already exists at

WP:IAR, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I know of that can be used to deny Encyclopedia Dramatica an article at this point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousUser12345 (talk • contribs

)

overturn/allow recreation This nomination was started by an SPA but it seems to have a valid point worth considering. For me at least the MSN article seems to push us clearly into the notable end of things. I suspect that some people will argue that this article focuses on Anonymous more than ED which may be a valid criticism (and it is fairly short). (I wish that these trolls would have the minimal social understanding to have a normal user like Shii or Running start this DRV...) JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per
WP:IAR - this is a perennial issue, and one that will not be solved by DRV alone.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Or you know, we could actually have a decent DRV discussion based on the sourcing and ignore the trolling. Which we've actually managed to before. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - there is no real reason for not having the article. I have the history of this article (with maybe too much personal opinions about the matter) on my userpage, which was already linked here. ED has three sources that talk about it and 16 sources that mention it somehow (and there are maybe more). I think it's enough. --Running 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I now read this page and I see that in last month some ED requests were speedily closed with messages like "no new informations" - well, now there actually are new informations - the new msn article. While I think ED was worth the article before it, now it's even more. I think now it's not so much about having or not having the sources, it's more about general principles. I am against this "Oh my, we don't want all these bad trolls and
Running 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist enough for a relisting, though I'm not sure how the AfD will turn out--but finding that out is what AFD is for. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

annother comment - in one of these closed deletion reviews, I read something like "show us some good draft". Somebody with better english than me can try edit the draft here -
Running 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist - It's going to be an uphill battle to keep the ED article from becoming a mini-ED itself. Nevertheless, there seem to be good sources, and a large number of people are interested. As for notability, it's currently ranked 2,099 on Alexa, which is significantly higher than Uncyclopedia (Really, check it out). I realise the site is a vicious parody of Wikipedia, but this shouldn't prevent us from covering it. In fact, it should make us more inclined to cover it. --Estemi (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The site is a pile of non-notable nonsense about equally non-notable
Wikia in a backroom deal in July 2006 pretty much ensured that fifty of the fifty-two Uncyclopedia languages will remain hosted on domains other than "uncyclopedia.org" - either "*.wikia.com" or independently - with no new *.uncyclopedia.org subdomains created. This means that Uncyclopedia has multiple Alexa ranks (uncyclopedia.org, uncyclopedia.info, pedia.ws and various others) but no means of obtaining valid info for Désencyclopédie, Inciclopedia and the like. --carlb (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
isn't a reason for deletion, and non-notable nonsense, well I guess uncyclopedia isn't nonsense and it's a very useful source of information. Oh and sub-domains are also counted in alexa.com ranks, so even with those 50% of those other uncyclopedias domains you speak of, ED is still considerably more popular.

Relist - I have no opinion on the reasoning for the deletion review. That said, the new source seems to be enough to warrent a new AfD. -
talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist Stupid nonsense, but that meets my standard for this sort of thing on the notability scale. It's far more than most websites we have articles on achieve. The article if it's remade should be permanently semi-protected to keep trolls at bay.
t/e 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist and make sure to point to a good draft finally a source that unambiguously covers ED directly and not its actions. And it's on the technology section too. I would say "overturn" but an article with such a contentious article should go throught the long path because skiping any step would cause heavy amounts of
WP:WIKIDRAMA and flood ANI with cries of undue procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist While I think this is a bit early to have another deletion debate about this article, I outlined some sound reasons for keeping it at User:Shii/ED and I think this new source should prove quite helpful to maintaining a good article. Shii (tock) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. The deletion was for notability and sourcing concerns and this seems to have been met. I see no reason we have to go through an AfD; DRV is the proper venue for this sort of thing. Mango juice^talk 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The various objects to an ED article reek of POV corruption. Wikipedia's mission necessitates an article on this notable (yet still disgusting) wiki. --Truthseeq (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - per the additon of new sources. I was just about to start a DRV myself. Also see my version of the draft at
Rose 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist. The arguments against always look like a whole lot of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist at AFD, but keep the article permanently full-protected if it is kept - even as Wikipedia's anti-ED poster child, I think the source just pushes it into notability. Just. The problems with an ED article now are troll attacks - the former can really only be dealt with by protecting, as any Grawp-basher knows - trolls from the 4chan family of websites are the most persistent. Do note, that even if the article is kept, the site can not be linked to directly - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO explicitly disallows any links to the site, and the remedy (and enforcement) was upheld two months ago (annoyingly, using my ED page as a reason for denying links). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this day would come Relist per my prophetic remarks here, barely hours ago. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation On the last extended DRV discussion I thought there was a good claim for notability. This new article solidifies it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, stop the nonsense. Enough already. How many times have we been through this? Durova^Charge! 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently you seem to be confused. New sources have turned up that establish ED's notability. There is no policy which forbid that there be an article on ED and
Rose 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy close, third or fourth nomination inside a week. Disruptive. It has been very clearly established that this article is not wanted on Wikipedia.
talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I (and I'm sure that many other Wikipedians) don't particularly "want" to have to look at pictures of male genitalia on the article
Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems to me like
Running 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Good God no No ta.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - And your reason being?--
Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Allow recreation Last time this came up at deletion review I did not think notability was quite established, with the new article am convinced that it has been and do not see any arguments that it has not been. Anyone can list it at AFD once it has been recreated of course but am convinced it will be kept now. The article should be premamently semi protected at least as a rather special case where it is needed. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per
WP:NPOV. Keeping them out because they're odious is contrary to our principles of no censorship, fails to provide neutral coverage of that segment of the web, and passes up the chance to neutrally describe their odiousness. We shouldn't let their misbehavior drag us down towards their level. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist as it has become more notable. If we can have a bazillion articles about paedophilia, really weird sex acts, zoophilia, graphic photos of various STDs, etc, etc, I'm sure we can bear the grossness of having an article about ED. -- Naerii 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation notability has been established with the significant MSN source. Of course, relist at AfD if you disagree. EJF (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Encyclopedia Dramatica is clearly relevant enough for an article to be created, not having one seems irresponsible. The content of the site shouldn't affect whether or not there is an article on it, and certainly hasn't stopped articles being created on similar sites.--
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

comment I still don't think this source is very good. It is only one source about the subject, it is quite short, and is it not a web source rather than a paper? It's definitely not the most well known of papers. We often delete articles based on their having only one source. The other sources are not primarily about ED, and all only mention them for a few sentences. It has pretty much the same number of sources than Wikipedia review but not with the same quality or depth, so if we remake it, we technically should have the WR article as well, not that I really think we are obliged to have either. In the case of ED, t's free advertising for what's effectively an attack site.Merkin's mum 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, and yes we know ED users want to validate their tawdry website by having a Wikipedia article, and nothing grieves them more than the implication that their little website is of anything less than surpassing importance but tough. It's just another site full of juvenilia and acutely unfunny "humor", there are a million of them. Oh, and I just visited the shithole to find out of Urban Rose has more edits htere than here, but their popups crashed Firefox. So: not only is it a cesspit of boring sophomoric nonsense, it's an ad'-riddled one at that. On the plus side, Rose does have fewer edits there than here (remarkable given her few edits here), but I did rapidly find out that she is active in the discussions about Grawp, who appears to originate at ED (I guess everybody else already knew this and I am just slow catching on). So another reason for not having an article: they are co-ordinating vandalims of Wikipedia as "punishment" for our daring to say how insignificant they are. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to say about the arguments presented here or do you just want to make ad hominem attacks? Shii (tock) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point - you are trying to say, that WP shouldn't have ED article, because it's attack site and it's full of vulgarities? Well, this can be easily described in the article. If you are implying that all users, that want ED recreated (I shouldn't say recreated, because ED article never really existed) are trolls or something, you are insulting me a little. --Running 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Guy, I understand where you are coming from, but NPOV more or less says we shouldn't let our personal views figure into deletions. The fact that ED is composed almost exclusively of a bunch of complete shitheads who probably get laid even less often than I do and will go shoot themselves in a few years when they realize they haven't contributed anything to humanity at all shouldn't factor into our decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anywhere on ED said Grawp originated at ED. There are some imitators of him operating now. Yes ED is effectively an attack site but that's not the main substance of Guy's argument or mine, which is its lack of sources discussing it in depth- one at the most, and not in a paper, saying how naughty it is. An aside- I think if some people had a very nasty article about them on ED, not just an attractive pic of them, and some of their own words like Urban Rose has, they would understand the views of some who are upset about their articles there a little more. I'm not so upset about mine nowadays but someone (not a regular at ED) wrote one where the title was my full real-world name, which personally I have never posted online. Even ED were sound enough to change it, as it's against their policies. Merkin's mum 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. When the draft at User:Shii/ED (see version [2]) was brought to Deletion Review on March 6th, I thought it was sufficiently well-sourced and sufficiently established notability that, if it were any website without ED's history of conflict with Wikipedia, there would be no dispute about its inclusion. This feature article from ninemsn (which is a collaboration between Microsoft and PBL, one of Australia's largest companies, and according to Alexa is the highest trafficked news website in Australia[3]) clearly pushes the notability level even higher. --Stormie (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - perhaps someone can figure out what exactly ED's claim to fame is. If it is to lampoon/attack WP (which is what the msn article is primarily about), then a redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia should suffice. If ED is a shock site, then it belongs in the same group (and is just as worthy of coverage) as goatse. At any rate, I don't think attacking WP is sufficient reason to not have an article/redirect. But then again, I have never been personally attacked by their sophomoric army of twits; my opinion might be different if it were otherwise. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist End the drama. Just relist this for crying out loud! It is more vigourously attacked than most websites, and now that we have a good source, I don't see why this should continue. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per the new source. And let the chips fall where they may. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation and relist at AfD is anyone feels necessary (which they will, but I don't think it's the job of DRV to tell them to). Sourcing looks nearly excessive from where I stand, and at the very least the new source pushes it close enough to the criteria at
WP:N that the community needs to decide on it. It also looks like this is nearly snowballing to allow it, since no one has managed to bring up a reason not to yet except things like "dear god no" and "disruptive", the latter of which is wrong. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

actually, "relist" is one of the votes at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review. Not sure if the closing admin is supposed to relist it himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin doesn't have to relist it... but he can relist, or leave it up to editor discrition. If the admin relists, in my opinion it helps if the admin actually thinks the article should be deleted... a procedural no-vote AFD nomination can be confusing and counterproductive. --Rividian (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation / Relist Better evidence of sourcing than a lot of articles keep around nowadays... not sure it meets a careful application of
WP:N but that's for an AFD to decide. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relist due to the new source that has just become available George The Dragon (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the article on ED. It's a huge compendium of Internet culture and Internet history. We have good sources.--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~. One article now? That is hardly non-trivial. ED is not the subject of ongoing, repeated coverage in multiple major media outlets. One article does not establish importance. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one article in addition to the pre-existing coverage as you can see if you look at the draft of the article or if you read the nominator's comment or if you read many of the comments above. And even if you were correct that hardly would justify a "speedy close". JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that to speedy-close this when an overwhelming response has so far been in the direction of relisting would be a blatant disregard of consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. Endorse deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation.
H₂O) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Allow recreation. Let's end the drama and show that we're not that biased. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation ED should of course be treated like any other article on any other website - if it makes the cut with the sources then there is no reason not to include it. If it doesn't then we shouldn't have it. This one seems to have made the cut. No bias, no hatred, no hysteria just simple a simple policy based approach. Viridae ^Talk 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The case is borderline, as there is now a slight claim to marginal notability; in a borderline case, a factor such as the fact that the site features vicious and repugnant attacks against Wikipedia and Wikipedians should be considered. Everyking (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, can you identify a policy to support that opinion? As I see it, not covering a subject that you hate or that has negatively affected you is POV, and not allowed by Wikipedia. I agree with your intention, but I don't think this is a valid argument for deletion by any means. --Estemi (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and guidelines are primarily described but what the community does. I can understand the logic behind Everyking's point and he doesn't necessarily need a policy behind (although I agree with you that this is allowing a POV to infect our notability criteria and thus strongly disagree with Everyking). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, the evidence fulfills the requirements for the article to exist. Nothing more, nothing less. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The new source demonstrates that the subject is notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, notable. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break for sanity

Relist at AfD - The new source found may tip the balance in favour of keeping. Yes, it attacks Wikipedia, but so have many mainstream newspapers, and we don't not have an article on those saying 'OMG!! THEYRE CRITICIZING TEH WIKIPEDIAZZZ!!!!111' Overall, it seems that having the ED article deleted, and constantly a topic of discussion [2/3 DRVs in as many weeks?!] is creating more drama than it was intending to prevent. No promise that I'll !vote 'keep' in any AfD though!
Ɣ |ɸ
18:38, May 9, 2008 (UTC)

Overturn and restore, possibly list at AfD. There's more than enough to warrant keeping the subject. Personal biases seem to be fairly major in keeping this deleted, considering the amount of coverage and mentions available. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on this subject has been moved into article space:
MHGW (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I strongly suggest we move that back until the DRV is closed. Process minimizes drama and conflict. (Also that should as I understand it be at
Encyclopaedia Dramatica. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Have to agree here. I support an article, but if any DRV's should be run by the book, this one should.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's back in place at
MHGW (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: just to keep things on the up and up, I've listed
Encyclopaedia dramatica for speedy deletion under R2 (redir from main to user space). No comment on this DRV though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The namespace that the article should be recreated under is
Rose 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That name, while more accurate, has the "æ" character on the name, a character that most keyboards don't have. Since enwiki uses mainly latin letters on the english alphabet, I'd rather not use it --Enric Naval (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, my version of the draft has been redirected so it seems that there is one particular draft that consensus is currently in favor of.--
Rose 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn The draft listed by MHGW shows that a fairly decent article can indeed be written about ED. I believe the page should be undeleted and this draft moved to it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. If articles should be deleted based on how "vile" their subject is, I expect to see Ku Klux Klan deleted before this. -Amarkov moo! 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the existence of an article on the KKK isn't as likely lead to long-term active disruption of the project. And the notabiilty level of the KKK is very different. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though whether an article's existence leads to disruption of the project is not a valid consideration for it's deletion. If it was, then articles that have to be permanently semi-protected just to deal with vandalism like
Rose 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
By any reasonable standard George W. Bush is much more notable than ED. So I'm not sure that argument would hold water. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that considering notability level past the point of inclusion makes sense. We have non-notable for subjects which can't sustain an article, and notable for things which can. It makes some sense to introduce a "semi-notable" category for things in the middle, but it's not clear how to classify things as more notable than clearly notable. -Amarkov

moo! 05:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it clear that ED is "clearly notable"? If we had this many sources for a BLP who wanted deletion many people would probably call this borderline notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Per user:Merkinsmum ED seems to have a policy against outing people who haven't already made they're personal information public so I don't see the concern with having this article. Notability should be determined in the AFD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Recreation I have to admit it is notable, even though they have banned me twice for "being a faggot" and seem to love raping each other in the ass. :-P Electricbassguy (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - No need to relist, original reason for deletion no longer met with introduction of non-trivial source, so an article would now fall within policy. VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also for recreation, but I feel that direct recreation would cause a lot more drama than relisting. And the article about ED never really existed - it was always deleted in matter of days.--Running 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Not actually true... there was one version that lasted a decent length of time and even survived at least one AFD before succumbing to the successful one. (Supporters of the article don't have a monopoly on the "if at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy.) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if this article doesn't survive the upcoming afd, I think we should unprotect its page from recreation. The only time that I believe pages should be protected from recreation is if a disruptive user is repetitively recreating a specific page. If an article is deleted because of a lack of reliable sources, then the page should still be allowed to be recreated, as if new sources turn up it the future, it's not really fair that those who wish to see the article recreated should have to go through this process, as it was really an entirely different article that was deleted way back when. If someone recreates it without new sources, speedy delete it, but there's no reason to protect it from being recreated.--
Rose 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrary section break for sanity 2

Allow recreation, but permanently semi-protected I had always been of the mind that given the pain ED has caused, any attempt to recreate the article better be impeccably sourced. The draft provided by Running, combined with the source UrbanRose provided, appears to meet that threshold.
96 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The original ED article was plagued with problems as people from that site were editing disruptively, at one point going as far as to repeatedly remove such basic information as the name of the site's legal owner. In short, the intent was to create an advertisement, not an encyclopædia article, as those who control ED made their endless attempts to control what information appeared in the Wikipedia page on ED. Various sockpuppets like "encydra", "encydra2" were created here as part of this effort. Any reason to believe that yet another recreation of this page will look even remotely like an encyclopædia article instead of just another online battlefield? --carlb (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently protect it, if necessary. But it makes the inclusion criteria, and the possibility of those problems shouldn't preclude inclusion. The same possibility exists for virtually any article, if people care enough to constantly vandalize it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that when it was a page not based on suitable sources, the contributors were not following other guidelines. Now that there is a well defined suitable source, it should be expected that the content is largely defined by what's in that source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with this article, in its original form, went well beyond the lack of sources. I don't see how one mention in a news article is going to magically change everything, if the content of this wiki has such little notability beyond the brief Jason Fortuny prank notoriety. Given the improbability of this becoming anything more than a mess of advertising, POV pushing and disruption that adds little of any encyclopædic value, it may be best to endorse deletion at this point. --carlb (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one defining source can be like the string of the kite, or the question that defines a debate. Without a proper secondary source, it’s not surprising that there was a rambling flow of original research going wherever the breeze was blowing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mention, it's substantial coverage.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation now a very notable website with plenty of reliable sources to make a good article.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at AfD. There is a stub with 23 sources. Aren't we holding this to a higher standard than...well...every other article on Wikipedia? Those who wanted the article were told to create a draft with sources to have a discussion...when they did that on May 3, it was closed as a disruption. --Smashville^BONK! 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation and relist for good measure. I thought Shii came very close in March, and this new source puts ED over the top. Notability is established, and to exclude the article for other reasons doesn't seem to fit our "neutral point of view" ideal. ED isn't even the worst website on the Internet. We have articles about
shock sites. Trying to keep this article deleted for eternity isn't going to solve any problems. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Allow recreation — It's real-life, it has received non-trivial coverage. What more do you want? Granted, ED poses certain unique problems, but if we're going to make an exception here, why not simply shut down Wikipedia altogether? Also endorse
talk) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So if we make an "exception" here and exclude an article on a marginally notable website that attacks Wikipedians, we might as well just shut down the project. Sorry, I don't follow. Everyking (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If and when we begin to simply decide ourselves what kind of knowledge we want to provide to mankind, then Wikipedia has stopped being an encyclopedia. "Marginally notable" is at least as subjective an opinion as "sufficiently notable", and that means that if we are going to take Wikipedia seriously at all, we have —for better or worse— simply no other choice than to have an article about a topic that has been covered, and mentioned at least in passing on several notable news sources: [4](
talk) 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that we have an article on Stormfront (website), complete with external links to that site. Thus, there's no grounds to claim that there's any exclusion of hate sites that overrides normal WP practice. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not completely convinced. An encyclopedia that is missing certain topics would still be an encyclopedia. Deciding a topic will be more trouble than it is worth doesn't make us not an encyclopedia. Ultimately we need to think about what will benefit our readers more. Now, as far as I'm concerned making such decisions provides seriously perverse incentives to people to harass and disrupt when they don't want articles and also possibly undermines
WP:NPOV. But claiming that doing so would make us somehow not an encyclopedia is hard to accept. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Would you also agree to removing the occasional problematic BLP? And for all, again: I don't mind not having an article about ED, just not under the intellectually dishonest pretence that Wikipedia can still be an encyclopedic project while we make such purely self-referential decisions.
talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I would not be in favor of that (I'm not in favor of it in this case either) but doing so wouldn't make the project non-encyclopedic. This is something annoys me a bit- many people have their own notions of what constitutes something being encyclopedic and then argue either for or against deletion based on that. The term encyclopedic is at best vague. Let's not get into arguments over which personalized definition makes the most sense, ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted an Alexa rank of 2,250 and not much increase over the last time this was up, surely indicates the non-notability of this website.
WP:WEB. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This argument is ridiculous. That rank is superior than 95% of the websites in the "Comedy websites" category (including Uncyclopedia, compare their ranks on alexa.com), and every website in the MediaWiki websites category. It clearly passes any Alexa litmus test. --Truthseeq (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that imply the exact opposite? Out of over 100 million websites, it's in the top 99.997% --Smashville^BONK! 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, we don't care about Alexa rankings. Something could be ranked 10 millionth. What matters is if we have enough verifiable content to write an ok stub on the topic and we seem to have more than enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - As much as this website is disliked by many here, it does now qualify for inclusion under our standards. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. As much as I think ED is a POS site that doesn't deserve an article here, let alone a mention at msn, JoshuaZ convinced me with the NPOV argument and his other comments. So I'll compromise with relist at afd. --Kbdank71 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.