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


 * 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 Delete. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Wikipedia has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia Dramatica &mdash; never having heard of it before tonight &mdash; but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on. Nandesuka 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

 * This article has been created under different spellings: The first AfD: Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica resulted in delete. Article was recreated under a different spelling. 2nd spelling: Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica resulted in keep, 3rd spelling: Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica resulted in no consensus. (This AfD uses the same spelling as the 2nd AfD).

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

Note to closing admin(s): Please refrain from merely counting keep or delete "votes" in determining consensus on whether this article should be kept or not. Please take the time necessary to read the arguments for and against deletion including discussion on the talk page of this AfD and properly evaluate said arguments in deciding the outcome of this AfD. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) (→ Netscott ) 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion concerning conflicts of interest surrounding this AfD.

Conflicts of Interest (concept)
Previous discussion relative to the propriety of this section was moved to the talk page. (→ Netscott ) 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Note to closing admins: Per conflicts of interest the following Wikipedia editors are also Encyclopædia Dramatica editors. See also this section from the deletion guidelines. (the link to the right of each Wikipedia user name is to that user's Encyclopædia Dramatica account). User:SchmuckyTheCat http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Badlydrawnjeff http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Badlydrawnjeff , User:Iicatsii http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Iicatsii , User:Merovingian http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Merovingian , User:Freakofnurture http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Freakofnurture , User:Azathar http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Azathar , User:Hardvice http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Hardvice , and User:Einsidler http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Einsidler
 * Yes, but Freakofnurture is an admin here and is only at ED for monitoring. Merovingian is also an admin here and is a trusted member of the community.--MONGO 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that MONGO but folks who have accounts at Encyclopædia Dramatica should just be recusing themselves from this AfD. (this discussion should probably be moved to the talk page.) (→ Netscott ) 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the implication that the rest of us haven't made any worthwhile contributions here (I'm thinking myself and User:SchmuckyTheCat in this instance, although i haven't examined other contributions). --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I don't get that implication at all from Netscott's note. It reads to me as if he's simply saying that those who work on a particular project are liable to have a conflict on interest in an AfD discussion of an article about that project.  That seems to me like a pretty reasonable point. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling Netscott out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I must have misunderstood. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that badlydrwnjeff stated on his userpage here at wiki that he is an Admin at ED...there is a distinction. I also concerned about the number of editors that were gone for some time, only returning to voice out here, or have less then 50 edits by the time they voted here.--MONGO 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure I did.  I still do, in fact.  I;m simply pointing out that you have some fairly selective criteria as to who's "trusted" and who's done good things here at this encyclopedia, to paraphrase a comment elsewhere.  Accuse us of vanity if you must (even lacking substantive evidence), but assume some good faith for once in this debacle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You want me to assume good faith...you expect me to pretend that your arguments defending this article's inclusion have nothing to do with the fact that you are an admitted administrator at that website... a website that exists partially harass wikipedians and to accuse wikipedians of being pedophiles...get real.--MONGO 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I want you to assume good faith, given all those things you just said. That means assuming that Badlydrawnjeff really does think Wikipedia is better off and not worse with this article.  I find that very easy to believe.  I think he has a conflict of interests in this particular AfD, but that doesn't mean he's not trying to improve Wikipedia, as he understands it. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you spent any amount of time looking at my contributions, or to Schmucky's, since I brought him up, you'd figure it out pretty easily. You're unwilling to do that, which is extremely regrettable.  If I've personally given you a reason to abandon good faith in this process - and seeing as I had nothing to do with your "attack", can't recall ever crossing paths with you prior, and have a long list of contributions here to my credit, I doubt there is one - then by all means present it.  Otherwise, you're simply abandoning good faith for a personal agenda and making an attack on me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you have removed or changed the main page attack on one of our valued editors? Hipocrite - « Talk » 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have main page access, and if I do, I don't know how to change it anyway, but any deletion or change I could have attempted would have been reversed immediately, and I had a personal rule when I contributed at length not to get major involvement in situations concerning real, non-celeb people, instead sticking to well-known articles and web memes. My contributions have been almost exclusively at Wikipedia since the winter, and I've really only been tossing ideas toward direction and situations recently without contributing, although I'd like to get going again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In summary, you saw the evil attack on a valued wikipedia editor and you didn't even check if you could remove it? "Who is more guilty of Sloth, a person who collaborates with the root of all evil, accepting things-as-they-are in return for a paycheck and a hassle-free life, or one who does nothing, finally, but persist in sorrow?"Hipocrite - « Talk » 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Evil attack?" "Guilty of sloth?"  Okay then, obviously you weren't interested in actually discussing this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a sign here saying this is not a vote, but to reach consensus so nobody has to make 50 minor edits to inflate their edit count. Hardvice 11:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

What about people who are voting delete due to the fact that they don't like ED? That seems a bit like a conflict of interests as well. Crazyswordsman 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well everyone who Encyclopedia Dramatica has articles making fun of who is on this site has come and voted to delete the article. Hardvice 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, in the interest of full disclosure, why not list all the Wikipedians who have ED accounts, and all the Wikipedians who are written about at ED, and get both lists where we can all see them, and carry on with the discussion knowing just who has a conflict of interests where? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's doubtful that the keepers are simply going to step forward and admit they edit that website.--MONGO 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Are you saying it's a bad idea because of that?  I personally am proud to say that I edit both wikis, so I'm not prejudiced to think that others would consider it shameful to work on ED. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are, but in the U.S., stating that someone is a pedophile is not funny so I cannot imagine that editing there is anything to be boastful of. No offense.--MONGO 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken, but I don't base my sense of humor on geography, or on what other people think is appropriate or funny. If there was any possible question that ED was even claiming to represent their content as factual, that would be one story, but they're pretty blatant about the fact they they lie all the time.  Come to think of it... I live in the US, and I've seen just about every televised comedian I'm aware of get laughs from auditoriums full of Americans by saying that Michael Jackson is a pedophile.  We Americans have a strange and creepy fascination with pedophilia, throwing moral panics over it while continually pushing the envelope as far as sexualization of children in our advertizing.  It's disgusting, and it's killing people, and it deserves to be mocked, quckly and repeatedly, because humor is an excellent weapon against social rot.  I find the way ED parodies our culture's unhealthy fascination with pedophilia to be smart, incisive, and often hilarious.  I am quite proud of the work they're doing there, whether or not you "can imagine" that I feel that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I should really add, MONGO, that I understand that you were written about on the website we're talking about, and I don't blame you for feeling upset about that article, and I probably would feel upset too, if it had been about me, and I would probably be in no mood to hear why some smart-ass thinks that ED is great. I hope you understand that I'm trying to show you that some people look at ED in a really different way that you might have thought. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, before you classify me as a "keeper," note that I have never said keep, nor do I edit ED, nor do I enjoy ED. I just want find moderation, as many of the keepers ARE ED trolls, and many of the deletionists have used unorthodox tactics to delete this that may violate WP:POINT.  This debate has gone on long enough, and a reasonable solution can be hashed out.  Closing admins: we have several possible alternatives on the talk page. Crazyswordsman 11:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been no unorthodox tactics involved to delete the article...that is simply not true...there were a few edits, I removed one section twice since it was not reliably sourced, the article was nominated for deletion and the closing admin, will, hopefully be someone who has not cast a single vote here, of made any commentary about the article...so you can trust I won't be the one closing out the discussion.--MONGO 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I've probably visited ED twice, but I have no account there and have never edited there (unless it was a typo fix or something as an anon, I have no idea what their editor threshold is). So can we STOP with the ad hominem attacks and get back to the substance at hand? -- nae'blis (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor an admin who has been lampooned at ED nor has a documented history of close association with the subjects of any recent notable ED lampoonings, for fairness' sake. rootology 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? I'm not an admin anywhere except wot.wikia.org. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that this concept isn't relevant to a WP:AFD. If an editor votes a particular way in an AFD, the only considerations the closing admin should consider are: (1) the strength of their arguments (if given), and (2) their experience/role in the Wikipedia community (factors to be weighed -- in no particular order -- include level of activity, level of recent activity, adminship/arbcom/mediator/etc., length of time here, quality of contributions, etc.). Whether or not the voter is associated with the website being AFD'ed is in my view irrelevant. --SJK 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've admited in previous AfDs that I am also a member of ED. I don't see a need to recuse myself (or for the other ED members here to recuse themselves). Its not just your wikipedia, its OUR wikipedia, and we all have a right to chime in our opinion on the AfD. As SJK said right above me, there are more important considerations to review then if one of the Wiki Editors here has expressed an opinion is also an ED member. Also, if you look at ED, my last real contribution was on February 18, 2006 http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Azathar . Your status isn't as important as your opinion. Its more important to write a logical, rational reason about whether you want to keep or delete an article versus your relationship to the article. This is where alot of AfDs seem to go wrong, as they get personal.--Azathar 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Azathar, although I agree with your point about the AFD, I must take issue with your comment that "Its not just your wikipedia, its OUR wikipedia, and we all have a right to chime in our opinion on the AfD." Well, its actually none of our Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, et al., own the servers, and ultimately its their decision as to what they wish to host on those servers... --SJK 07:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. (→ Netscott ) 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep ED is going to be the new GNAA. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That, in and of itself is grounds to speedy the article.--MONGO 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Whether the GNAA or ED the site is liked/not liked is irrelevant. That article has proven it's notable in the fact that it survived 18+ deletion attempts. It's notable for better or worse.. rootology 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, you have very unorthodox standards for deletion. This particular one does not comply with Wp policy.  Karwynn (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Already established notability once and twice. No new evidence or reasons provided.  Karwynn (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as notability to a large audience, see Maddox, Tucker Max, Animorphs, Last House on the Left, Livejournal; I could go on forever! Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Article's WP:V and WP:NOR problems are being cleaned up as we speak! Karwynn (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Animorphs is about a series of nationally published books (not to mention toyline and television series), and Last House on the Left is about a nationally released film that has had significant impact upon horror film studies, as well as being produced by one of horror's foremost directors, Wes Craven. Your other examples are more apt, but those two are quite silly comparisons.--SB | T 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to argue for notability please provide some proper citations and not self-referential links. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take note that the Alexa traffic ranking of Wikitruth, a purely anti-Wikipedia site, is 74,000ish. ED is 24,000th ranking. Which is more notable thus? rootology 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I started Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica with lists of facts and their sources. I am hoping people will add to it. It seems prodcutive to me. --Bouquet 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See (already linked) previous deletions, notability established by precedent UNLESS you have something new to say. Which so far, you don't.  Karwynn (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Not only is the site not notable, it is also a massive violation of WP:V. --Hipocrite 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, we seem to be able to come with sources for every dispute. WHy not let the dispute ride out first?  Karwynn (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a single provided source has been a strong WP:RS - the provided sources were all to the site itself, or to old adminstrative pages on Wikipedia. There is nothing verifiable about this article. --Hipocrite 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why aren't you discussing it in the talk page then? I've seen nothing recently from you as far as reliability goes.  Karwynn (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was very clear that wikipedia was not reliable, and that the site itself is of questionable reliability. I was clear that the livejournal hacking is totally unreferences. I was clear that you pulling out some themes you thought were notable as themes was WP:OR. You are ignoring this - because you like to wikifight. This ends my discussion with you. --Hipocrite 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Said livejournal hacking mention was removed from the article minutes ago. We are in agreement.  Karwynn (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:V and WP:NOR (and does not seem feasible to cleanup the article, see the talk page....) --≈ jossi ≈ 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is only here to tell people about the emotic and vain world of LiveJournal, and MySpace. I do not believe Wikipedia is for whining, so do it at Encyclop*dia Dramatica next time. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not feasible? Why not let us try first, and see how we do?  That seems more in line with the Wikispirit.  Karwynn (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting attitude about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, read the archives... --≈ jossi ≈ 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Although article is being vandalised by Wikipedia admins ~ IICATSII 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly not an admin and I'm not "vandalizing" the article. (→ Netscott ) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then he obviously isn't talking about you :-) He means MONGO, I would guess.  Karwynn (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, his conduct on this matter is not becoming of a Wikipedia admin. ~ IICATSII 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty serious allegation -- can you provide some specific links?--A. B. 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details, and also note that MONGO stated on Tony Sidway's talk page that he would work to get this article removed from WP immediately before all this began. rootology 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I think the progress in the talk pages is looking good. People are coming to consensus and inserting sources for material. Additionally, I think ED easily meets WP:WEB. Everyone is putting effort forth to create an encyclopedic article, I have faith in the process. --Bouquet 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As mentioned this has been blocked from deletion twice, proving notability. Every point contested so far has been cited and proven, or is still up for dispute. Consider deletion request in possible bad faith/bias. Also, even if nearly every part of this article were legitimately removed, it is still just as notable as all these similar articles (just a small sample of similar articles on "niche market" wiki projects):
 * The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
 * Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken about all the other articles. Having said that, we've got some set criteria for notability and I think we should stick with them until these rules are changed by consensus. I'm not saying this out of some slavish devotion to rules; I respect the fact they are formed by a broader consensus and are our best bulwark against a much busier, messier and more subjective deletion process. (In the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags.) --A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In Nettscott's defense, he wasn't involved in this before his nomination. More like an ill-informed nomination than a WP:POINT ciolation, it seems like.  Karwynn (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at  at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Wikipedia is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.--MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Wikipedia and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. --  Donald Albury ( Talk ) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Attacking Wikipedia is a small part of this site. Also, there are articles like Criticism of Wikipedia.  Karwynn (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there an unspoken rule about linking to sites that have any kind of negative view of Wikipedia or it's users, even in a small minority of their content? If so perhaps this should be pushed as a Policy change to make it thus, rather than a possibly bad faith deletion request. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.   TALK  22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We delete attack articles. --  Donald Albury ( Talk ) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As we should. This is not an attack article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.--MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site.  Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff link proving the ED Wikipedia article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:
 * "I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"
 * I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Wikipedia completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.   TALK  22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". (→ Netscott ) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia--Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. -- Aude ( talk contribs ) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Wikipedia... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? (→ Netscott ) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor!  There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL!  Read the website, you'll see what I mean.  Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Rootology.--Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally.  We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as  if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.--Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, it it didn't rely on the premise that having a WP article about something is an endorsement of the subject, but it's not. See Flying Spaghetti Monster.  NO one takes that seriously either.  Karwynn (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet Daniel Brandt still has an article. Why shouldn't ED? rootology 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I could write dispassionately about these topics, although I would certainly be edited mercilessly afterwards by various partisans. I'm sure there a zillion other Wikipedia edotrs that could also.--A. B. 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons can't vote, correct? Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * keep-The website is notable.


 * This isn't a vote. --Merovingian 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons can comment, just as anyone else can, and a well argued anon comment can swing a debate. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Biased-target soliciation was sent out by User:Funcionar, drive by, starting at 22:30. Hipocrite - « Talk » 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, no valid reasons for deletion, especially having articles about various other run-of-the mill wikis of significantly lesser importance. — Jul. 18, '06 [22:32] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Speedy keep Quite notable, though current article does need some cleanup. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with other articles about unimportant websites. This page is more promotional for ED than informative for our readers. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per rootology, and de-list as soon as possible. I HEAR THE TROLLS A-COMIN'!!!  --Merovingian 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Recived biased solicitation. Hipocrite - « Talk » 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, but I voted the other way. --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Clearly notable, and useful.  Sure it should be cleaned up and improved, but that's no reason for deletion. I might go as far as to say this AfD was proposed in bad faith. --Jmax- 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Jmax, Rootology, and others. --CharlotteWebb 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not seeing the notability. --Pboyd04 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Recived biased solicitation, but voted the other way. Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing this? Please prove and cite each instance where you say this. rootology 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The spam message was, "Please come to Encyclopædia Dramatica to help vote in the deletion" which sounds more like it's supporting the deletion. The account that generated all of the spam has been indef. blocked and I've reverted all of the spam. (→ Netscott ) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a user asked for people to comment, but not to comment either way. Is it biased to simply draw attention to a vote's existence? As I named you as well in my complaint I think you need to recuse yourself a bit. This is silly and biased on your part. rootology 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Targets were selected for obvious reasons. Per WP:SPAM - "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is all in bad faith due to the attack article on MONGO that was previously ED's article of the week, which then lead to the admin edit-war. Ryūlóng 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles AfD and edits are clearly being made in bad faith. --Weevlos 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. --Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Wikipedia admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Wikipedia policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Karwynn. --Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Wikipedia must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) (→ Netscott ) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. (→ Netscott ) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#_note-alexarank 24,000th rank per Alexa. rootology 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. --Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the bad faith? I strongly encourage you to assume good faith. (→ Netscott ) 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? (→ Netscott ) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? (→ Netscott ) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. (→ Netscott ) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article?  My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. (→ Netscott ) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly.  You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. (→ Netscott ) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point.  Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith.  You should certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. (→ Netscott ) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). (→ Netscott ) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you assume wrongly, and you fail to act in good faith. That's no longer my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Helllllooo redundancy!!! (→ Netscott ) 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's amusing how any counter-point to deletion is met with veracity from people opposed to the article, but my call for assuruance that group concensus will be honored is ignored. rootology 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Speedy delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Speedy delete per nom"? On an AfD page?  Obviously the nom didn't think it was a speedy.  Speedy delete cannot be "per" anything but a speedy criterion. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong delete. The site simply isnt notable enough, in fact, "Themisfitishere", "Leeroy Jenkins" and that sort of thing are probably more notable yet often deleted. People often think that because an article get's nominated for deletion lots of times and is well known within wikipedia (Wikitruth for example), means it may be notable. I often make this mistake myself. Vanity article too. Don't really need to give these kids any more publicity (not that that is a deletion criteria of course :) ). --  Bane s  00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. Criticism of Wikipedia isn't a factor when considering whether or not an article should be kept. 209.167.60.170 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct, criticism of Wikipedia shouldn't be a factor, and those bringing it up should drop that angle like a bad habit. This article needs to be deleted, not because ED criticizes WP, but because it's a load of original research with no reliable sourcing for anything. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more crtiable sources are found. Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a bunch of original research about a website that no independent reliable source has ever seen fit to say two words about. Once ED attracts independent attention from reputable publishers, then whatever they say about it can be used as the basis for an article.  Until then, no. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Changing recommendation, see new bullet below with this timestamp: GTBacchus(talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep as per rootology. (edit conflict)  This is not an attack article, and if a vandal adds defamatory comments to this or any other page the correct action is to remove said comments promptly and enable semi-protection, if necessary.  Silensor 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, attack article isn't a reason to delete according to anyone sane. Do you have any reply to the whole "original research, no reliable sources" argument? -71.212.73.43 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This is the user's first edit. east . 718  02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, not verifiable, original resarch issues, etc -- Pilotguy ( roger that ) 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The article attempts to support its own existance with dubious claims of the notablity of the subject. For instance, just because the ED website says they have 8,000 users doesn't make it so.  --rogerd 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This info on the article is as verifiable by third parties as is WP's own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics. rootology 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice that isn't a Wikipedia article, and nobody claims that Special:Statistics passes WP:V
 * Does the rest of the front page pass it? Maybe this should be removed from the front page. Double standard? rootology 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1000&offset=0 Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible....the software is open-source. They could have done anything with it.  They probably didn't, but how do we know?  --rogerd 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ONLY if unverified, and self-serving statements are removed (ie: Rogerd's point about the number of users. Can that be proven?) Resolute 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1000&offset=0 Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known site. Alexa rank of 24462 when I checked just now. The content of the page can sure be fixed up, but there should be a WP entry about this site. -- Ch&#39;marr 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a well known website with a high Alexa ranking relative to most all other wikis we cover. Yamaguchi先生 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Alexa rankings don't impress me. --InkSplotch 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an attack article, though this may be an attack VfD.  Stanfor d andson 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, so it's not an attack article. Do you have any good reason that we should ignore WP:V and WP:NOR, because those are the policies that I actually see entering into this decision, while the whole idea about whether it's an attack article or not seems to me like a really obvious red herring? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regretful Delete. I expected to want to keep it, but after I took a look, I don't see evidence of notability or verifiable sources. If those can be found later, I'd have no objection if it were recreated. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not again. KEEP Just give it up, enough is enough. How many times is this article going to be AfD'd? Keep per User:Karwynn's opinion above.--Azathar 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per rootology. I agree that this is a bad faith nom.--Anchoress 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just as non-notable as ever. --InShaneee 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rebecca 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Travb (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire per nom, per TS (and I'd like to note that users of the site placed stupidly nonsensical attack templates on my userpage there just after I created an account - not a valid deletion reason but should be mentioned anyway). — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having your page user page vandalised on that site by a minority of ED vandals isn’t a strong argument for delete. ~ IICATSII 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was, did I? Kindly direct your attention to my quote of "not a valid deletion reason but I thought I'd mention it anyway". Please completely read my statements before commenting on them. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, this makes no sense to keep it -- Tawker 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a parody wiki relevant to internet culture and, more specifically, the LiveJournal culture. High Alexa ranking and many google hits.  Keep, Keep, Keep.  Jogabbeyjr 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep based on evidence of premeditated plans to destroy the article: ( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Related evidence to Hardvice's post. Edit history of main admins opposed to article, showing determined attempt to disassemble article without proper discusssion (despite being asked for it by editors) almost as soon as it was unprotected on 7/17/06:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=MONGO
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hipocrite
 * Also, open bias complaint on them here for this issue:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details rootology 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Robertsteadman 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Uncyclopedia has an article three times as long as this one, the two websites have similar themes and the two articles have similar content. Also I have often seen statements such as "Let Encyclopedia Dramatica handle it" around Wikipedia, which suggests that not only is Encyclopedia Dramatica noteworthy (High traffic etc), but it is still important to complement Wikipedia's content. Remember, Encyclopedia Dramatica all started due to Wikipedia's refusal to document internet related activities such as http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Mediacrat the Mediacrat drama. In summary, if this is deleted then so should Uncyclopedia, but that isn't going to happen, is it? Since it is hosted on Wikia. And also, Encyclopedia Dramatica itself has a vital role to play in Wikipedia. Btw, I was recently given an unwarrented permaban from ED, so if anything I should be biast towards deleting the article. --Einsidler 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Einsidler permabanned - apparently not]
 * Keep. I was on this site this morning. It was nice to be able to read a Wikipedia article about it after being on the site sparked my curiosity. I'd like other readers of Wikipedia to be able to do the same. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, survived two afds and is at least as notable as Uncyclopedia, it would not look very good if only the site which is controlled by Wikipedia stays. This is a bad faith nomination and a case of politic taking over wikipedia. Lapinmies 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB; this article is up for AfD, not the other articles who might or might not fail the above criteria. Lectonar 07:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Wouldn't we rather have the dozens of other good articles that will be created if editors don't have to waste their time dealing with this article? NoSeptember  07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment-If 'delete everything that is a "non-notable" wiki' is the order of the day, why not AfD Encyclopedia Of Stupid instead? Encyclopedia Dramatica has considerable traffic, and has over 8000 user accounts. How, in any way, is ED non-notable? This article has also survived two AfDs, so why bother again?-KetTalk to Ket, kthx 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5 edits...total as of this comment:--MONGO 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But had a point and was not even a vote... Lapinmies 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lapinmies-KetTalk to Ket, kthx 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the 8000 accounts, how many are blocked, how many puppets and how many vandal accounts, or do just the figures of accounts made count? --Alf melmac 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:VER Of the listed references, even those that aren't cited correctly, nearly all of them are primary resources, self-publishing items that are not in regard to notability. Of the remainder, they are blog sites, and do not qualify as reputible resources. Of the alexa traffic, it is only reaching 30 people per million, which is 0.00003. Also, it should be noted that this ranking only includes those participating members of Alexa that provide Alexa with data, and is non-representative of the actual english speaking population of the globe. WP:VER is policy, and supports WP:OR hand in hand. Therefore, this entire article is nothing but original research, unverifiable per the quality standards, written somewhat in the POV, and is basically non-compliant. Notable? Policy supercedes guidelines, but not notable per nom. Ste4k 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete only on the grounds of notability. Fails WP:WEB. DarthVad e r 07:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. Obviously, this article is also a vandal magnet. The content section fails WP:NOR. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jim 62 sch 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tony, GtBacchus et al. --Alf melmac 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is an important website. Could editors please get over themselves and stop trying to delete things simply because they are unhappy with or disapprove of, the amount of notability the subject has? Via strass 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This version which I saw when I came through to this article doesn't seem to contain anything really that unbiast, self inflating or otherwise grossly untrue about what is a controversal but not un-noteable site. There's not reason for this to be deleted. If you think vandal magnets should be deleted, you better start deleting some other articles too. --Nidonocu 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Hey, look, it's strongly referenced. And hey, it's been involved in a notable media event. Why are we still talking about this? Captainktainer * Talk 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (Liberatore, 2006). 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - To respond to the various arguments for deletion presented; OR / RS / V - None of these are reasons for deletion of an article... only for changes to its content. Further, primary sources are valid for verification of non-subjective facts... such as 'creation date' and 'number of users'. Some might insist on phrasing such as, 'Encyclopedia Dramatica claims to have over 8000 users', but the existence of that claim would be verifiable, reliable, and not original research. Attack site / Disruptive / We cannot be unbiased - All possibly true, but not reasons for deletion. We do not exclude Adolf Hitler because it is difficult to remain unbiased in writing an encyclopedia article on him... or because the page generates disruption... or because the man (and his followers to this day) said and did nasty things. Keeping this article from being used to attack others while not ourselves using it to attack ED may well be a difficult task requiring dedication and maturity... but we do that for Daniel Brandt and plenty of other contentious pages and should continue to do so. Notability is the only argument for deletion I have seen here which has any sort of validity. The notability standards for websites are bizarrely high / arbitrary (in that actual usage measures like Alexa ranking, registered users, daily page hits, et cetera are all excluded from consideration), but ED does (barely) qualify even by those measures given the reference to it from Brian Krebs. By any sort of more reasonable standard of 'web notability' based on usage, such as those actually followed for hundreds of other articles which are uncontroversial keeps, they are certainly notable. --CBD 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you 100% CBD, Notability has no validity as an argument for deletion... and OR / RS / V are absolutely reason to delete any article that does not meet these well defined policies. WP:WEB is a guideline and as such can be argued either way... but WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are non-negotiable.--Isotope23 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are all policies... about the content of articles. They have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion. All but a very few Wikipedia articles failed the 'verifiability', 'original research', and/or 'reliable sources' policies when they were first created... indeed, the vast majority of articles still fail those policies. Yet no one is arguing for the deletion of several hundred thousand articles... because those have never been and never will be criteria for deletion. The frequent citation of them on this page is an embarrassing example of searching for a pretext to accomplish a goal founded on entirely different motivations. Lack of notability IS a reason for deletion, and ED is within the (very wide) grey area defined by Wikipedians' wildly differing notability standards... but it seems clear that ED is notable enough that it would be unambiguously kept (like many less notable web-sites are currently) if the subject matter were not so controversial. Which is what this really comes down to in the end... an effort to exclude information on ED because the site is annoying/offensive/obnoxious/et cetera. If it weren't then the page probably never would have been nominated for deletion or, if it were, a handful of 'high notability standards' deletionists would be the only ones voting delete. A few people have been up-front about deleting for these reasons and to prevent strife et cetera... which are valid motivations, but I think outweighed by the importance of impartiality in how we review and maintain articles. --CBD 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument presented is not that the article fails WP:V (which it does), but that it is fundamentaly unverifiable - that it cannot pass WP:V, ever. Hipocrite - « Talk » 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite has it exactly right. You may disagree CBD but any article that fails WP:V and WP:NOR can and should be deleted if it cannot be verified.  It has nothing to do with personal feelings about Encyclopædia Dramatica (to be honest, I quite like the site).--Isotope23 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in my original vote... a good deal of the article IS verifiable. The claim that something can't be verified unless it has been printed in a major newspaper is just silly. The current user count of Wikipedia has been included in the Wikipedia article for years... despite not being stated in a 'verifiable third party source' or, since we got big enough that they did start reporting it, despite contradicting outdated figures in such sources. How is this possible? Are we 'breaking the rules'? No... we're using a primary source. The Wikipedia statistics page and/or list of users can be linked to directly as verification. ED exists. It has users. It has articles. Those articles are on various subjects. All of these things are easily verifiable by any user of Wikipedia... indeed, far more verifiable than references to obscure out of print books, which we accept without controversy. If the ED article were to say, 'ED is the funniest site on the internet' that would be POV. If it were to say, 'Josh Bumblemeyer of the New York Times says ED is the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable opinion from a reliable third party source. If it were to say, 'ED claims to be the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable claim made by the primary source (not that I am suggesting the make this claim - just an example). Verifiable means that there is some way for the reader to check that the info in the article is accurate. For most of this article... there is. Ergo, no... the claim that it can never be verified is just false. --CBD 11:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard all comments, both for and against the article, if they are based on the mistaken assumption that either notability or the lack thereof is able to override the core policies on which the whole of Wikipedia is founded. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's been said above already. Karm a fist p 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Wikipedia does not exist to help them achieve those goals. 800 ghits, ZERO google news, ZERO cited reliable sources, and basically it's just an offsite troll-a-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote.  The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Wikipedia(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED.  Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete.  However, I had separate occasion to reflect on External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable.  One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP.  But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE × talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Wikipedia rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Wikipedia, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User's first edit. Hipocrite - « Talk » 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article.   Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and for the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Lulz lulz. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate.  The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines.  The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article.  the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source.  The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph.   Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Wikipedia discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages.  All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Newsvine is a bloglike publishing service - anyone can start and write anything in their own column. The ED reference is by shaolintiger, who bills himself as "L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver." This is not a WP:RS, though the ED partisans are edit-warring for it's inclusion. Hipocrite - « Talk » 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but the newsvine thing is only being linked to as a review, not as a source of information. Karwynn (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria in External links. --  Donald Albury ( Talk ) 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like it or not, we must abide by our central policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. We cannot keep articles that do not meet these policies. Most of the "keep" voters seem to be arguing that it should be kept because it is notable -- note that notability is not a criterion for inclusion, whereas V and NOR are criteria for inclusion.  It is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not if it cannot be written about based on existing, reliable, reputable, secondary sources.
 * Keep The solution to a blog review is to move it to external links, or even remove it, but not delete the article. Mongo's conduct has nothing to do with this, and should be addressed at WP:ANI, or for a matter of such detail, by an WP:RfC. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment aggreed. However, what do you think about the verifiability of the article? Hipocrite - « Talk » 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are links supporting much of the description of ED itself, and much of the rest is both plausible and probably sourceable. (And may well be sourced when the article is unprotected.) I think those links can be accepted under Verifiability; we can accept ED (under reasonable conditions) as a source about itself. Notability would be a bigger problem; but I think we should lean over backwards to include articles on WP critics and attackers. We should avoid looking like censors; and many users will sant to know about ED, the next time it makes a scandal. Septentrionalis 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It is nn and breaks WP:V.   FloNight   talk  16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds of original research, verifiability, and notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as not meeting WP:N. In particular, it fails to meet WP:WEB summarized here (with my additions in caps):
 * The content itself has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works ... The website or content has NOT won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation ... The content is NOT distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ...
 * This one seems cut and dried for all the disputation it's generating here; perhaps all the other reasons pro and con are muddying the waters. The site's criticism of Wikipedia should not be a factor even if harsh. A Dramatica sysop's involvement is irrelevant since we're voting on an article, not an editor; the devil himself can write an article for all I care if it meets the guidelines. Vanity can get cleaned up and should not be a reason to delete if otherwise notable. Two previous failed AfDs are instructive but do not prove notability (as someone else claimed). Original research can potentially get cleaned up, but then that might also fix the notability issue. I started to vote "weak" delete based on 117,00 Google hits, then I noted only 109 were unique. There are no Google news hits from the last 7 weeks. Checking alternate spelling ("æ", "ae") gives similar results. Prove notability (or change WP:WEB) and I will be happy to change my vote. --A. B. 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Google Hit Question have people tried "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or are they just using the ae? Hardvice 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unique Google Hits are completely meaningless. "Microsoft" only gets 460 unique hits.  Silensor 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the unique hit issue. I did, however, look at (but not open) all 109 links and none were to traditional media; some might have been to notable blogs but I wouldn't know. As for the spelling, as noted in my previous comment, I tried all 3 possibilities ("e", "ae" or "æ"). --A. B. 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoshuaZ. Would Microsoft Encarta or Encylopedia Britannica cover this?  Would you go to a library and be able to find information on Encylopaeda Dramatica?  Most likely not --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can find one mention of Wikipedia in Encarta, and only in context of the open-source movement in a discussion regarding encyclopedias, and nothing in Britannica. So I don't see how that's really relevant. There are far less important things with articles here.Tx9 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note the talk page history of the article as well, related to reasons for deletion. The less important articles (of which there are tens of thousands surely) will not be nominated and pushed for deletion as aggressively as this one. This is a matter of subject matter. Or, using this AfD as basis, if this article is removed, the AfD will surely be clogged with thousands of AfD requests in the next weeks? This is a dangerous precedent being set here. rootology 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per AB, with a further plea for reliable sources, - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've heard of it. Homey 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of WP:NOR and WP:V, too?
 * Keep - can't see a problem with it. quercus robur 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you see any reliable independent sources for it? If not, you're looking at a problem with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete nn Ian ¹³  /t  18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough for me. That its content is or was bad is obviously no reason to delete. That it is an attack (is this really so?) on Wikipedia, is obviously not a reason to delete. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toffie and Karwynn Will (message me!) 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Abstain. Comment: Someone is sending unsolicited emails  from Wikipedia (presumably via the "Email this user" function), alerting recipients about perceived administrator abuses, this AFD, etc. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete At this point my opinion won't make much difference, but consider: it's ranked 24,000. Do we need 25,000 articles on the top 25,000 websites?  Just because it exists, just because you heard of it, doesn't make it notable.  Less than 4 thousandths of 1% of Internet users visit it on a daily basis.  Furthermore, it is almost without citations, mostly because the facts involved may be unverifiable.  Ingoolemo talk 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. All cited sources are primary sources, which are not acceptable under WP:RS. --Carnildo 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delete, unnotable, and apparently far more bother than its worth. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some US federal government computers, such as mine, are blocked from viewing this site. I suppose that means it has at least a tiny bit of notability.  But actually I don't know how these things work. ike9898 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't quite see the merits of deleting, I'm afraid... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you see the merits of citing reliable secondary sources for content in Wikipedia? Are you aware of any of those, for the content about Encyclopedia Dramatica?  Is there a good reason to waive our policies about verifiability and original research for this particular article, and others like it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ridiculously strong extreme speedy keep.  Grue   20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do all of those adjectives in front of "keep" somehow obviate the need to contribute a reason to the discussion, or explain why original research is just fine in this case? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What original research? I see one section tagged as original research, which doesn't merit the deletion of the whole article. The adjectives in front of my "vote" demonstrate my utter amazement that this article is even considered for deletion.  Grue   21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason the other section does not have similar tags is this unexplained removal of a tag. Hipocrite - « Talk » 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Replying to Grue, all of the information about ED's content and tone, and most everything about its history that isn't a link to a deletion discussion here, is cited back to ED itself. That's original research, carried out by reading a lot of ED pages, learning about ED, and then writing on Wikipedia what you know about it.  Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about ED from the outside, and comment on it, as a noteworthy phenomenon?  Are we locating such sources and reporting on what they say is significant about ED?  No, because such sources do not yet exist, as far as I can tell, anyway.  Until you're doing that, you're doing original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia links back to itself and unverifiable Wikipedia/foundation stuff in several places. Double standard. If these are not valid, the count of users/articles and web traffic volume (the chart) on Wikipedia are not valid and should be removed. rootology 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Double standard" isn't a reason to keep policy violations around. I would suggest that any unverifiable content should be removed from any article, but if it turns out there's a good reason to make an exception for the Wikipedia article (I'm not familiar with that article, and the inevitable OR issues I assume it has), that's certainly no argument to make any other exception.  Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org, a new sort of web-directory Wiki where users are encouraged to write about websites based on their experiences with them, and content directly from the site is ideal. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop spreading the nonsense. An article about some document (be it a book or a website) can and should use the document itself as a source. In fact, it is the most reliable source available. The whole argument for deletion is based on ignorance and pettiness (because apparently they don't like Wikipedia - oh my).  Grue   07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Grue, I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motivations. I happen to really like ED, have an account there, and think their take on Wikipedia is hilarious.  I also agree that, if this article is to exist, it certainly should use ED as a source (obviously we would want to link to examples of what we're talking about), but not as the only one.  At that point, it's original research, and there's no difference between using a non-notable website as a source about itself and using some self-published book you wrote yesterday as a source about itself.  Independent reliable sources have not yet seen fit to talk about ED and provide us with sourced material yet.  I'll be ecstatic when they do; until then, this article doesn't have the kind of sourcing it needs.  You can say I'm speaking out of pettiness if you want to drag the conversation to that level, but it won't make it true.  I'm speaking out of my belief that WP:NOR and WP:V are sound policies that should be followed more strongly and more enthusiastically than they currently are, because they are what will make Wikipedia more trustworthy and more valuable.  Now, if you think my argumets are based on ignorance, perhaps you can lead me to better understanding by teaching me what I currently don't know.  I'd be quite happy to have that conversation with you.  Can we do it quite civilly, though? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, Grue needs to try a little WP:AGF before jumping to ridiculous, unfounded conclusions about why others might opine deletion.--Isotope23 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply Keep. Kitia 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom --Ragib 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One more simply keep - It could be a conflict of interests but it's just a reality. -- Szvest 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
 * Have the simply keep voters looked into the verifiability and origional research problems the article is alledged to have? What reliable secondary sources are used in the article? Hipocrite - « Talk » 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources. -Will Beback 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG SMERGE. I've looked over the history of this article, as well as this discussion, and it seems to be breaking out into a war similar to that which happened to Brian Peppers, which ended very controversially.  I don't want to see that happen again.  Therefore, I am proposing this compromise to stop stupid debates like this once and for all.  To my understanding, much of this information is Original Research, and thus must be removed.  However, there is some verifiable information, at least in the opener that can be written without violating WP:NPOV.  It is also my understanding that both ED regulars and Wikipedia admins are trolling the page and personally attacking each other.  Several people even want this deleted because ED bashes Wikipedia.  Censoring Wikipedia bashers violates WP:NPOV last time I checked.  One person also sarcastically asked if World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?) would have this.  Well, they wouldn't have articles on a lot of notable stuff we have here, and WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia.  However, WP:NOT a soapbox either, which is what about 4/5 of the article is.  Also, the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability.  I ask everyone, especially the extreme keepers and deletionists, to take this argument very seriously.  This is one of those debates that went on for an extremely long time and have become flamewars.  These debates need to end with all of us giving up a little of what we want to establish a firm community consensus so that doctrine doesn't get forced down our throats.  Find a place for the one or two notable, verifiable sentences, and delete the rest of the article.  Let's stop the trolling and settle this properly, okay?  Thank you.  Have a nice day. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can get behind this. This would be fine for me as a valid stub that can be expanded in time as press cites grow. rootology 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those who have followed the edits less closely, can someone provide a link to a reasonable version that's limited to what can be properly sourced? Crazyswordsman made one comment I have to reply to: the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability.  I can't agree with that at all.  Notability means notability in the world at large, not among Wikipedians.  I love ED, and that doesn't make it notable, either. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite - « Talk » 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html also cites and links to the ED website. I've just been told as well that www.newsbank.com has some sort of archived Chicago Tribune article that cites it. Waiting for a link. rootology 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't point nor does it cite ED. A COMMENT on the blog post does. Unless I'm missing something, if this is the closest to actual coverage you can provide, this is far from evidence of notability, and more evidence of grasping at straws. Why is establishing ED's notability so important to you? Is it truly in the interests of informativeness, or merely vanity? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said that, GTBacchus. What I meant was some Wikipedians like to use ED as a dumping ground for non-notable memes.  Also, it seems to have widespread (yet unfortunate) popularity within internet communities such as Fark, YTMND, etc.  Putting one or two sentences or even a section about ED in the LiveJournal article is something I bet we could all agree upon. Crazyswordsman 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Swordswoman (and others), would you say the washingtonpost link I entered just above and this reference to ED: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/2006-04 ...are valid sources of something's notability? rootology 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rootology, as a blog the first link does not constitute a reliable source and the second link is self referential meaning... does not establish notability. (→ Netscott ) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Netscott. No. To me, reliance on those specific pieces of evidence is in fact strong evidence of ED's non-notability to date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Wikizine's site it is seperate from Wikipedia and the foundation, it's just hosted on that URL. Read the page. It appears per that link that ED was notable enough to mail out however in a "news report" to the admins, sysops, and ambassodors of the Wikipedia family. Correct? rootology 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How does a rather non-notable Wikizine establish the notability of non-notable website with a one line reference to that website? (→ Netscott ) 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Blogs aren't reliable, sorry.  I'm sure there is something out there, but frankly I have better things to do than deal with endless debates such as this.  My main purpose is to end the debate, not help decide in the fate of an article that is obviously controversial. Crazyswordsman 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete because multiple people have spammed me about this. Yes, that's not an argument. Here's the argument: fails WP:V, no evidence of notability has been presented (Wikitruth is notable because it has been cited in a newspaper story). Ashibaka tock 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that many here have made good cases for it being WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB. Arguments against deletion seem to be along the lines of "there are worse examples in wikipedia".  In that case, fine, let's get that lot into AfD too. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Whispering 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this site is as notable as Uncyclopedia. if there's attack content in the article. Take it out. Don't delete an article based on that.--LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and because of the email spam I received promoting this thing. I detest email spam. Vsmith 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Also people don't like getting spammed. You've probably worked this out now. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm fairly new to this discussion and have mostly been reading the comments of others, but it seems rather odd to me that we are considering deleting an article on a website which is home to a great deal of negative criticism of Wikipedia.  It would not appear very favorable, now would it?  I have done some reading of ED's articles on Wikipedia, and I can imagine that the editors of ED would be thrilled to see non-ED'er Wikipedians deleting the article on ED.  It would serve to confirm every negative thing they say about Wikipedia.  That alone is reason enough to keep, maybe prune it back to a stub, maybe block certain known abusive editors from being involved with it (esp. those cited as ED users above, per WP:vanity), but in general, keep it.  Deletion is too draconian a solution.  Kasreyn 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the notability and verifiability questions? (→ Netscott ) 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I don't understand precisely what the notability and verifiability complaints are. If the article isn't that notable, it should be trimmed back; I feel that at least some mention of ED is warranted, so I suppose it would be fair to characterize my opinion as being that ED is at least minimally notable.  As for verifiability, is there a concern that ED pages are being changed and thus cannot be cited?  Don't they have permanent page history like WP?  If so, just link to the specific revision in which a claim was made rather than the article name, and add a caveat explaining that ED is a wiki and its content may change.  Kasreyn 07:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, it has more to do with avoiding original research, which is intimately linked with verifiability. I understand our policy to be: first something exists, then people in the world take enough note of it, someone publishes words about it, and then we get to write a Wikipedia article based on those published words.  That gives you notability, verifiability, and the certainty that you're not doing original research, all in one.  I don't see that happening with this article.  Most of the facts in it just came from people who happen to be familiar with the website, which is pretty much the definition of original research.  If we insist on using facts that come from independent, reliable published sources, then we aren't doing our own research. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I get over 150 out of 1000, whats going on? Lapinmies 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: I have posted what I feel is a great good faith compromise to this absurd mess here: proposed compromises (two). Please review and add commentary there. rootology 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it seems that the desire to delete this article comes from the fact that its subject holds criticism of wikipedia. If wikipedia doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, and criticism of itself, then there's something wrong. - Richardcavell 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment about personal attacks on the site to which the article describes: Wikitruth's website has a category called http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians and it has far more personal attacks on wikipedia admins than encyclopedia dramatica. It also has links to three of them on its front page. Where Encyclopedia Dramatica calls one on the list a mere name, wikitruth has pictures, real names, etc. I hope you consider this who voted to delete the article. Hardvice 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... what on Earth has any of that to do with this article's WP:V and WP:OR problems, which are the only sane reasons being given for deletion. This discussion will go more smoothly if we can avoid being distracted by the fact that ED has pages attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians.  That's just irrelevant here. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't believe the utterly obvious double standards over web content notability guidelines that exist on Wikipedia. Having trawled through countless trivial and banal entries for webcomics, I can tell you 100% that any webcomic with an Alexa rank of 24,000 would be speedily kept and the nominator slapped on the wrist for a bad faith nomination. There is, and should be one guideline for web material, WP:WEB, why the page interpretes as very much laxer for webcomics is beyond me. The amount of delete votes here suggest that any web material less notable or popular would be railgunned out of existence forever. This however, is not the case at Wikipedia, as can be seen in this AFD and this AFD and many others. For example, I agree with the keep outcome of this AFD, but note the total lack of delete votes for a website with an Alexa rank of 60,000. I think that an AFD for it's spinoff The Wotch: Cheer! would also result in a keep, something which I would absolutely disagree with. But the reason that I'm voting keep, isn't just out of spite for the double standards at Wikipedia, but because I genuinely think it's popular enough to be notable. - Hahnch e  n 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to address the complete lack of reliable independent sources for the actual content of the article, which is the only sane reason being given for deletion? I agree that our standards for webcomics are stupid, but that's no excuse to do everything else wrong too. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Related to this: nearly every project article on Wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_websites has LESS outside references let alone Alexa rank than ED. Why are those not attacked as vehemently for deletion? rootology 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there hasn't been a catalyzing event yet. Isn't that always why some things haven't happened yet while others have?  What's the point in calling motives into question here anyway?  That's a red herring, and we'd do well to keep this discussion on topic if we wish to resolve it. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V.-- Ávril   ♦   ʃáη  01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Homestarmy 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The subject appears nn with no actual reliable sources to show notability (despite Washington Post blog, as WP:WEB points out Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores., thus trivial coverage is not relevant). Furthermore many of the keeps seem to be coming from mass spamming campaign, it seems that this is one of the cases where there is a massive backlash at attempts to manipulate Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about spamming campaign? Who is spamming?? I submit that the deletes have put together a spamming campaign to silence all critics. 71.112.141.236 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I was being sarcastic too! 71.112.141.236 04:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon, your diff is an example of cluelessness. (→ Netscott ) 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My diff is an example of you saying something quite laughable by a majority of people. 71.112.141.236 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The spam Jersey Devil refers to was to essentially all admins on Wikipedia in support of some sort of action against User:MONGO (and in support of this article). Again, cluelessness is the perfect descriptor here. (→ Netscott ) 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are they spamming people? Sending links to this AfD to uninvolved or uninterested people? If not then you need to look up the meaning of spam. Here's a link!. 71.112.141.236 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, get a clue... count how many times the word "spam" is mentioned in this AfD.... someone was spamming via e-mail. (→ Netscott ) 05:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, ever consider that it's someone trying to stir trouble? Whoever's doing it is NOT associated with ED. 71.112.141.236 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable website. Its notability is due to its importance in LJ community & spreading LJ memes, and also because it is related to Wikipedia. As equally as some people have argued that it could be a vanity page, I think the attempts to remove it are taking "anti-vanity" too far -- just because it is somewhat associated with Wikipedia, doesn't automatically imply its non-notable or vanity. Subjects of articles like Bomis, Nupedia, Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales, MeatballWiki, Enciclopedia Libre, Uncyclopedia, Wikitruth all derive some of their notability from associations with Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are non-notable, or vanity. --SJK 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article? That's the only sane reason being given for deletion; what's your response to it? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can interpret "the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article" in one of two ways -- as referring to verifiability, or to notability. In terms of verifiability, most claims made in the article are verfied through primary sources (i.e. if Wikipedia says "ED says X", a link to a page saying X on ED is verification; in fact, its better verification than a link to a secondary source would be.) There are a few &#91;citation needed&#93;, but I don't think that's a major issue. In terms of notability -- when dealing with websites, or Internet memes/phenomena, its not always possible to determine notablity by reference to "mainstream" sources, because this is the kind of stuff mainstream sources tend to ignore. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are unnotable... at the end of the day, notability guidelines (or even "policies") are only guidelines -- they are applied in accordance to consensus. (This AFD is one way of measuring that consensus.) --SJK 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess I have this picture of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and this article and many web-related ones conflict rather badly with that picture.  My picture is this: first something exists in the world, then people notice it, and if enough people care enough about it, they start writing about it in published works.  After that happens, we get to write an article about it.  I got this picture largely from AfD discussions relating to biography articles.  It's also reinforced by my conception of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source, which relies on reliable and independent secondary sources.  They serve as a filter, both in terms of verifiability and notability.  In this discussion, I'm seeing people trying to bypass that filter, which is probably not how they see it at all.  I guess we're dealing with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is.  I'm not sure how to resolve that. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, "published sources" are inevitably going to exhibit selection biases. And of course, Wikipedia is inevitably going to have selection biases as well. The question is -- what selection bias does Wikipedia want to have? Personally, I think in writing an we need to consider both published sources & the collective experiences of Wikipedians--something can be notable if enough people here agree it is notable, even if published sources have not considered it notable. I think, in part because WP:NOT paper, Wikipedia need not be beholden to published sources. But this is really a question which needs to be answered through Wikipedia's decision making processes (such as this one)... --SJK 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "If enough people here agree it is notable...". I think that's a bad idea.  That's a good way to really hard-wire our systematic biases, for one thing.  It's a good way to make Wikipedia more about internet culture and less trusted as a source for general information.  It's a good way to make Wikipedia more like Encyclopedia Dramatica.  I think it should be a matter of pride for us to have high standards for verifiability in independent reliable sources.  If we actually get good about that, Wikipedia will be so much stronger.  Articles like this erode at that possibility, and that's why I feel compelled to speak up against it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the reality is that Wikipedia is a quasidemocracy. What the majority of people think does count for something -- including about the questions of what kind of content should Wikipedia include -- although its not a pure democracy because its a system in which some people's opinions count for more than others. (For example, Jimbo's views about what Wikipedia count a lot more than yours or mine.) --SJK 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of few websites I've actually referred back to Wikipedia to learn about.  RFerreira
 * Delete. Non-notable website outside of its users. Google gets me 123,000 hits -- only 14 of which are unique. I'm not seeing the least sign of the alleged notability.--Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:SchmuckyTheCat. Trolls are not notable.-gadfium 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  Voice -of- All  07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to subpage of Parodies, which is an appropriate place to keep unencyclopedic information like this. (My earlier recommendation of "delete" above has been striken.) -GTBacchus(talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Can this prove notability??? The massive number of people who came here to vote and debate on the site for this AFD, with strong opinions on each side. If it was nonnotable, it would get maybe 10 or 12 votes and that's only it. Hardvice 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not A high level of interest among Wiki subculture people has nothing to do with what we actually mean by "notability".  "Notable" is really a codeword for "people who publish reliable sources have taken note of it, and talked about it in print".  A tempest in this teacup means nothing. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the site is not very notable and in borderline nobility cases, I'm willing to entertain factors that I would not otherwise to make the decision. However, "borderline" is a charitable description in this case, as I have higher standards of notability than most editors. First, I received a spam email concerning the article. Second, the site has attack pages on Wikipedia editors. Third, those who edit the site are extremely interested in having a Wikipedia article and have gone to extraordinary lengths to have the article kept. This is a very bad sign. A notable organization would not care whether it has a Wikipedia article and a good non-notable organization would let the decision be made without trying to influence it, especially in an underhanded manner. Finally, unless an evil site, person or organization is so notable that Wikipedia would be incomplete not to have an article on it, like Charles Manson or the Aryan Nations, it should not have an article. When dealing with topics that are not very notable, Wikipedia can sometimes participate in the topic, increasing its notability, rather than just documenting it. In many cases, this is innocuous. In other cases, such as articles whose subjects are evil, it might not be. Wikipedia should never promote evil, not even a little and not even unintentionally. Based upon the attack pages, and the failure of the site to delete them, I believe that Encyclopædia Dramatica is evil. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who sent you the spam email? 71.112.141.236 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone calling himself or herself Rptng03509345. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also got the spam, I think many people did. --  Bane s  12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, even if the main article is deleted, wouldn't a recreation after under parody count as a seperate article? Also, does anyone have any reason under policy that it shouldn't just be moved there NOW to end this nightmare? I now support just moving it RIGHT NOW. I'm tired of this, and if even thinks this won't be a no concensus vote where either a vote to keep or delete won't be met with scorn and appeal all the way up to ArbCom they're not thinking right. Rather than waste EVERYONE's time anymore I say we just move it to the parody section. Some day when (simple law of probability states it will happen... in 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades) when the site gets more notable press it can move back to the main name space. My vote is now to end the AfD, stick it in parody, and be done with it? Even if a truly neutral admin makes it a keep vote someone will just AfD this again and we will indeed have the next GNAA. Who wants to waste the next five years fighting over this? rootology 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It must be noted that as of 10am PDT on 7/20/06 Admin name: Zanium is abusively editing the protected article as part of possible bias vs. the subject matter. It has been raised as an issue at AN:I but not addressed yet and he has not reverted. This is biased as 1) no editor can challenge his unilateral edits; 2) its a policy violation; 3) further evidence that as the thing that brought this to the fore was the attack on MONGO by the ED site, there is NO way for this to happen fairly. rootology 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: We do, when it seems otherwise reasonable, accept people's statements about themselves and their own field. There are fairly tight restrictions on this; see Verifiability, but much of this article seems to meet those restrictions. Septentrionalis 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton and Joshua Z. Guettarda 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll never in my life seek to ban criticism (or a website full of criticism) of something I believe in. Amen to the Webcomic argument. --kizzle 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Marginally notable at best, but so much dust has been kicked up that it's hard to tell. There are so many blatant contradictions to Wikipedia policies and practices in the discussion that it's pointless to single any out. To keep the article under these circumstances just invites more dust-kicking. So delete the article (again?) for now, which is no great loss (if any). Then if the promotors of the site succeed in making it clearly notable without the help of Wikipedia and our many mirrors, someone unconnected with the site will recreate the article at an appropriate time, and will be able to provide unequivocal references to support notability. See autobiography for this principle in more depth. Andrewa 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:VAIN, WP:ADS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notable as an experiment in itself, notable because it is well known in the Internet, it just needs a bit of attention. If we have an article on Uncyclopedia, we will have an article on this too. --Cyclopia 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) no, double "deleting". :-) (→ Netscott ) 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like everyone to take a look at the Straw Poll I set up on the Talk Page of this AfD, as I'm trying to hammer out a reasonable compromise between both parties before people start accusing others of WP:IAR. I failed to settle the Brian Peppers controversey, but I will not fail this time.  We need a consensus. Crazyswordsman 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:V, complete and utter lack of WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources, tons of self-published original research, childish web forum fancruft, does not pass WP:WEB. Weregerbil 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes this appears to fall short of the WP:WEB guideline, but it has survided two AfDs as "keep" and "no consensus." (The "delete" VfD was very early in the site's existence.) If it were possible to keep stable, it could be a small stub like OrthodoxWiki. As it is many of the "references" are weak at best, eg. the Washington Post article that "refers to" ED actually refers to a webpage that happens to be on ED - it doesn't refer to ED as a site, nor does it even say "this page at ED." I tend toward delete per Andrewa, but the previous "keep" AfD gives pause. Gimmetrow 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why should this be a stub? ED is similar to Uncyclopedia (although much funnier) and that has an article filled with useless trivia about the site, with the only references being on the site itself. Why can't people just follow WP:STFU and leave the article be, possibly with semi-protection? --Einsidler 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Easy question: Wikipedia has standards on notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Weregerbil 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Banes and others. We have no obligation to give trolls a voice. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but you do have an obligation to write an article on every notable topic. 71.112.141.236 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And this isn't one of those notable topics. Crazyswordsman 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The logical conclusion is: We have no obligation to give non-notable trolls a voice. --  Bane s  18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above discussion of WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Eluchil404 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've re-opened the discussion, after closing from AfD/18 July and found that that it was way off the 120 hours cut-off. (in fact, this should be listed at 19 July). Also, it appeared to be listed at the top when it's supposed to be bottom,is it done to gain more attention of editors? - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As an impartial admin, can you fix any inappropriate or incorrect formatting like that which you see? I'd rather not (nor do I want Netscott to) since either of us trying to fix it will just start ANOTHER fight. Would you please mind? Just for the sake of civility, to make this like other AfDs. rootology 06:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD looks rather legible to me overall, so I don't think it needs any further re-formatting. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:V and a bunch of other policies. As stated many times above. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable attack site. -Hanuman Das 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. An alexa rank of 25,000 is notable. Just because they make fun of some of our admins (sometimes a bit cruelly) isn't a reason to kill the article. We're holding it to unfair standards that we don't hold thousands of other articles to. Redwolf24  (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion nomination seems to be in bad faith and I can see that there is work being done trying to add verifiable sources. The site is certainly notable, this should not even be in question.  Lenn0r 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion concerning independent souces for the article.

Article sources
COMMENT: A verifiable news source has cited the ED website, and the information on this is detailed here. Please take this into consideration. Article now meets V, RS, NOR for hard factual data in several ways, plus the existing borderline ones that should be debated in article Talk page. rootology 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources found and mentioned on talk page. I am putting this here because the article is protected so these cannot be added. Please judge for yourself. I admit the article really is in bad need of sources. Copying from someone else's words on the talk page. I think people who voted should review these to determine if this determine's the sites validity.


 * "Account hijackings Force LiveJournal Changes" from The Washington Post
 * The article itself links to ED somewhat misleadingly (seems to imply that ED is Bantown's own website), and someone mentions it directly in an anonymous message board post below the article. No verifiable content.
 * "Another Alternative Wikipedia - Encyclopedia Dramatica" from Newsvine
 * This is a good ED review, but it's just some guy blogging. I'm sorry, not "some guy", but "Shaolintiger: L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver." This source does provide content, but isn't from a reasonable source, in my estimation.
 * "What's the word? TL; DR acronym. too long; didn't read" from The Guardian
 * Here, The Guardian mentions ED quite directly, and then proceeds to tell us nothing about it that translates into verifiable content.
 * Mention in Wikizine
 * I really don't see how Wikizine counts as a reliable published source, but they do provide us with precisely one, soundbyte sized, nugget of goodness.
 * "PureVolume meets Merriam-Webster" from PureVolume's community blog.
 * Well, it's a blog, repeating the soundbyte from Wikizine and adding a little more content. Too bad it's a blog, huh?

One is from an actual newspaper. Hardvice 01:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC


 * Right. Not a single reliable published source giving us any verifiable information to work with.  The ones that say anything at all aren't reliable, and the ones that are reliable don't serve to verify any content.  In other words, those five sources add up to zero. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The guardian one does demonstrate that Encyclopedia Dramatica is a parody site at least. "Encyclopaedia Dramatica contains a photo of George Bush with the American Constitution and with tl;dr inscribed on his forehead.  TL;DR - or tl;dr, tl:dr, tl,dr or tl/dr - is net-derived lingo for 'too long; didn't read'."  Hardvice 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does that. That's really not much. It certainly doesn't look like the model: Site exists, attracts notice, people write about site in published works, we take those published works as secondary sources and write a tertiary source summary. Do you reject that model, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello? Is this AfD not long enough as it is?... Talk pages exist for a reason no? (→ Netscott ) 03:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott - it's ok. It's ok if we talk about this here, because Hardvice wants more people to see it.  No harm is being done, no animals were injured in the course of this discussion, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes it difficult for folks to have to wade though all of this duplicated (yes it's already on the talk page) information. I would at minimum recommend encapsulating this bonafide section of talk in a NavFrame to reduce it's actual size (much like the Conflict of interest section). (→ Netscott ) 03:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's on the talk page - I'm the one who put it there. It just isn't worth the grief at this point. The Navframe idea isn't a bad one... let's see... -GTBacchus(talk)
 * As I've said above, I think the verifiability issue is covered by the provision of WP:V that allow otherwise unused sources to be acceptable sources on themselves; and these mentions do go some way to establishing notability. Septentrionalis 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the whole vision of Wikipedia whereby things happen in the world; and then secondary sources write about them because they're notable, and hence noted; and then we report what the secondary sources reported as notable, since we're a tertiary source? At that point, we certainly may link directly to the website, or to otherwise iffy sources, in certain circumstances, but we don't get to just bypass the middle step where people who actually publish words for a living take note of the subject and generate secondary source material.  Does that picture of how Wikipedia works seem wrong to you, or how do you see it, that's different?  I ask because I feel that I was taught pretty directly in my early experiences here to think of Wikipedia that way, and I'm sometimes surprised that it's not a more widely-held vision. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "What do you think of the whole vision of Wikipedia whereby things happen in the world;"
 * ED puts up the history/page (link to ED article) about tl;dr (Google results), an Internet meme/slang/joke thing which is VERY notable with 21 million Google hits.


 * "then secondary sources write about them because they're notable, and hence noted;"
 * Guardian newspaper notes the ED site. See my extensive RS analysis of Guardian on the end of the Talk page here.


 * "then we report what the secondary sources reported as notable, since we're a tertiary source? At that point, we certainly may link directly to the website"
 * This article thus exists, and by your model is valid to exist? Or does "whereby things happen in the world" have a different standard with websites/online events? As of 2006 I consider the internet to functionally be part of "IRL". When I go out my car, cell phone, laptop, wife's phone, and (if she let me buy it, curse her!) my watch as well, will be 'internets' connected. rootology 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that the fact that ED hosts the tl;dr article is properly cited. Right now, that's the only thing I know of that can be properly cited, besides the Alexa stuff.  It's not a basis for an article.  I asked Pmanderson the question I did because he seemed to be saying that verifiability doesn't require independent reliable sources, so I wondered if he was operating from a different vision than I was.  I may have misunderstood him; if so, I hope I'll be corrected.  It's becoming clear to me that we're dealing in this discussion with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia should be, and I think it would be great if we can get to the core of that issue and talk about it directly. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

filler- please don't remove as this sets up formatting above. Thanks.
 * 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. ''