Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica


 * This article was subsequently deleted (and protected against recreation) due to the debate Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP (closed by User:Mikkalai)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

 * For the prior VFD discussion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, now a redirect to this article, see Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica.
 * The decision was to delete basing on nonnotability. The page has been recreated without undeletion procedure. No new proof of notability is provided. Therefore the page is candidate for speedy deletion, and I am labelling it as such. mikka (t) 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * But this isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica. That page was recreated as a redirect.  Perhaps that's the one you want to speedy? --Badlydrawnjeff 02:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A trick with changing a single letter will not go. It is still a candidate for speedy. mikka (t) 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What's your grudge mikkalai? Did ED write an article about you? It's your VfD, and then you put in on the speedy delete track? And in the meantime you keep editing it. I'm beginning to question the good faith of this nomination. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I put it on CSD according to the rules. I love this website. I love humour. I myself created an article about humor, which was under VfD, by the way (Russian joke). The real problem with rules is that one is very reluctant to follow them if it is against their likes. This is exaclty the case. I nice website, but sorry folks. 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my habit to work on improving articles even if they are VfD. I even have a case I voted a page for deletion, then edited it, and this helped it to survive VfD, even though I was very insistent about its deletion (Votes for deletion/Muliebrity). (I am not bragging; I am writing this in hope to prove that I am impartial in the issues of deletion.) mikka (t) 17:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * del. non-notable. original research. mikka (t) 00:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * moderate keep, wikicruft CAPS LOCK 00:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * no matter what cruft, it does not pass very basic criteria. mikka (t) 00:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep - assumes Wiki takes other websites as arty topics. When I checked this, someone had vandalized by inserting an attack as the bottom third of the arty.  I moved that to talk. Fabartus 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a web guide. Alexa rank 249,325 Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  01:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If this is kept, avoid self-references needs to be applied. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  02:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hate to reference Google as Google isn't exactly an unbiased source, but if it's got a pagerank of 4/10, that means it's of interest to a significant number of people.
 * Like many others, unsigned vote by Almafeta. Hedley 02:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few Wikis matter and this one doesn't. Hedley 02:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep More notable than half a dozen other wikis that have pages on wikipedia. This page has been in a stable state for quite a while before being vandalized at a stretch today.  I'd probably just go back and revert the whole thing. SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I noted on May 15 that Encyclopædia Dramatica had over a million page views. Since then, there have been another 200,000 page views. There seems enough public interest to merit inclusion. The Wikipedia self-reference is easy to remove if that's considered a problem. --Aussieintn 03:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link to the Wikipedia article (Avoid self references). It seems to me that the other mention of Wikipedia should stay because it is historical and explanatory, and would make sense in other contexts (e.g., a mirror, a fork or in print). --Aussieintn 12:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note:User's 9th edit, most of the other 8 are to the page in question.
 * Keep. Looks notable enough to warrant an article. 23skidoo 15:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this is being deleted for whatever reason, I'm curious as to what level of notability it has to reach, given the ever-growing amount of articles and ever-rising Google rank.  In my mind, even I couldn't really justify having it on WP 6 months ago, or even arguably 3. Now, though, I think it's reached a level of notability that is consistent with other arguable keeps. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- has source and verifiable. Flcelloguy 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still don't see where the supposed self-reference was. There never was a self-reference. There is a relationship between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Dramatica, so there's no way and no need not to make Wikipedia talk about itself in this case. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * . Linking to a particular user of Wikipedia and using the "User:" syntax to refer to the user is a self-reference; it was there when I made my vote. Note that I did not use this as an argument for deletion, only as a suggestion for article improvement in the event of a consensus to keep. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  17:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the self-reference? I don't care about the guideline about self-references. In this case, the guideline should not be applied, because it's important to mention User:Girlvinyl to show that there's a relationship between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Dramatica. After all, it's User:Girlvinyl who created the Encyclopedia Dramatica. The article should mention that the Encyclopedia Dramatica was, at least initially, created by the user to criticize Wikipedia as a result of flame wars in the talk pages. That's an important aspect about the Encyclopedia Dramatica that should not be left out, even if Wikipedia users don't like the criticism of their encyclopedia. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, Girlvinyl should be mentioned, but not Wikilinked or referred to as User:Girlvinyl. Ignore the guideline all you like, but "these references complicate forking and the use of Wikipedia articles by others" certainly applies here. A Wikipedia mirror will not necessarily have a User:Girlvinyl to link to. User space should never be linked to by article space. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  18:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should we care about sites that copy the Wikipedia articles? If those sites copy the article, and they don't have the User:Girlvinyl article, because they don't have a User: namespace, then that's the problem of those sites, but not the problem of Wikipedia users. In my opinion, the hyperlink to the User: namespace should also be added. I don't see why we should change that just because other sites copy the Wikipedia article. Those sites should just eliminate the hyperlink if they don't have a User: namespace. Besides, if those sites create forks from Wikipedia, it's their problem, and not a problem for us Wikipedia users. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then we should agree to disagree. I think it's a good guideline – mirroring Wikipedia is a Good Thing&trade; and it should be as painless as possible. If you feel that strongly about it, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  18:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like that "we should agree to disagree" oxymoron. If what you don't like is mentioning User:Girlvinyl as User:Girlvinyl, then we can just leave out the name of the namespace User: by adding a vertical bar after User:Girlvinyl, so that only Girlvinyl appears. It would look like this: Girlvinyl. I mean, if that's what you don't like about it. I don't see why removing the hyperlinks would be a "pain" to other Web sites that copy the pages. If they have computer programs that can copy Wikipedia articles en masse, then they could just as easily have a computer program that removes the broken User: hyperlinks automatically. It's their problem if they can't automate the process. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to discuss this issue is at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references. 22:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there are entries for Something Awful, Portal of Evil, and Fark, no reason why there shouldn't be one for ED.  -hx 2/06/05 etc etc


 * Keep. I think it has become sufficiently notable. Masked Angel 19:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's 14th edit

I am totally baffled: now an internet thing may be judged notable with so small number of google hits? Also, how can it be anything but original research if no solid independent references are present? I have nothing against the site: I like jokes and humor very much, but people, isn't your judgement skewed here? mikka (t) 20:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Jats 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So what would it need to achieve to make you believe otherwise? What size Google rank?  What kind of information? --Badlydrawnjeff 20:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It needs an information from an independent authoritative source. You cannot just open an arbitrary webpage, and write a wikipedia article to describe what you see there. Wikipedia in not catalog of websites. I can write a separate article about each linden tree along Unter den Linden. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources: the main reason is that wikipedia is not in the business of peer review and correctness of information in an article cannot be guaranteed by article's author: this proof is relayed to outside sources.. mikka (t) 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So if I insert information from, say, places that reference ED, your opinion changes? --Badlydrawnjeff 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete drini &#9742; 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete on the same grounds as before. It's growing faster than I expected, but still not noteworthy enough for an article.  5000 Google hits for an "internet phenomenon" isn't much, and the Alexa rank is around 250,000.  Come back in a few years. --Carnildo 21:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So how many Google hits are worthy enough for you? We've kept many other phenomenons with lower Google ranks, as you well know. --Badlydrawnjeff 02:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5000? I get 8,940 using "encyclopediadramatica" and 6580 for two words, and even above 6000 using the Æ symbol. I essentially re-wrote the Unpedia (or whatever it is) article replacing Unpedia with ED. Putting Unpedia on VfD would be begging the point but it sure shows some bias towards "approved" wikipedia satires. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, how did this go from VFD to Speedy? hydnjo talk 22:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of this page. mikka (t) 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain why they want to delete this article in the first place? It makes no sense to me. "Non-notability"? What kind of garbage is that? 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT and WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 11:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. &mdash; Phil Welch 23:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 02:59, June 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 02:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. &mdash; Instantnood 05:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing gives me a reason to change the previous vote. Vegaswikian 05:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 11:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. Or speedy it even. &mdash; Xezbeth 11:19, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and rewrite, observing NPOV. We may not like it, but it is a part of our Internet community, and we as Wikipedians cannot ignore what we don't like Antares33712 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * Who says we don't like it? But me liking my girlfriend is not a reason to write a wikipedia article about her. mikka (t) 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is she as notable as ED? --Badlydrawnjeff 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which ED?... Of course, she does not have a million views, but plenty, I assure you. mikka (t) 18:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please, Wikipedia has a GNAA article. ED has way more relevancy. --Weev 22:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Disregarded. User's sole contribution. mikka (t) 22:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. Anyhoo, GNAA has been nominated four times, but (unfortunately, IMO) survived every time. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  22:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't hurt anything by being here, as long as it is a NPOV, I don't see why it can't stay. It's just an entry about another wiki. See Antares33712's comment above. How much space is it taking up on the server, is it enough to warrant it's deletion?--Azathar 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think it's probably just notable enough, as long as it's kept NPOV. Nightwatch 17:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks notable.  Grue   12:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems popular enough but some things in the article should be removed because of NPOV
 * Keep Appears notable Falphin 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Appears? Google search results for "encyclopedia dramatica" fit into a single screen. mikka (t) 02:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.