Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (4th 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   Non-admin speedy close of likely bad-faith nomination. An examination of nominators contributions reveals it to be a trolling-only account. Mike R (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I know many people here are sick of all the drama about this article, but since we have not had a debate about this for months now, I'd like to have it deleted, on the grounds that it is not notable merely because of passing mentions in the press. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lulz No. Protonk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How do passing mentions establish notability? Ee-ellh (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By that definition, almost everything in Wikipedia is deletable 'because of passing mentions in the press.' Half  Shadow  22:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia has had very notable press mentions, such as several articles all about it, far more than small mentions. ED is being used to coordinate trolling-it was G***p's home before they banned him for being unfunny. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you yourself have just stated why the article is notable. Half  Shadow  22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pointing out that ED is a local phenomenon uses primarily for trolling, similar to the deleted GNAA. The fact they troll Wikipedia is probably what gives them an air of notability around here. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a possible cause, but it doesn't properly explain why the article was deleted for the better part of ED's existence and only allowed to be recreated (at a much higher threshold than other new articles) in May of 2008. New sources, including a wired profile, an NYT profile, a conference paper, a New york Times magazine profile all changed that.  It isn't "locally notable", it's notable. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it as notable as Elsie Leeson? Ee-ellh (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How should I know and why should we care? Protonk (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Miss Leeson has been mentioned in a published book, ED has not. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is notable merely because of mentions in the press. Lrn2AfD. This debate can be quickly closed. Skomorokh  22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that an AFD should be closed speedily merely because it has been kept in the past was the reason the GNAA article survived 18 AFDs before finally getting deleted. If we were to really think about this, and disallow the troll votes, the article would probably not last. Ee-ellh (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to assume your proposition of "passing coverage" is true. I don't.  There is significant coverage from multiple independent sources on this website.  If you don't like the site, ok, but that doesn't change the coverage.  It's notable. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment For those not familiar with the subject, Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica has a lengthy list of deletion reviews on this subject along with links to past AfDs which are not picked up automatically by the AfD2 template above. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.