Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (5th 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   speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
This is a horribly-written article for a site that seems notable only around here only because of the vileness of their attacks. There has never been an article about ED in any major news source annd no one out side of a few internet communities who have been attacked by them knlow who they are. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Hmm, seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article has survived deletion debates before, and passes WP:GNG. That's about all there is to say, really.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It only seems notable because of the Wikipedia connections. Otherwise I doubt there would be an article about it here. And, as I said above, the article is written horribly. It seems like you want to create an article about ED using every "source" imaginable but that is all the page is, links to sources and no real content. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this is the fifth nomination, most of this has been said before. However, like 4chan and Anonymous, ED is an important part of Internet culture. There is enough reliably sourced material to make an article on ED worthwhile, please read through the article again.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 4chan and Anonymous are far more notable than ED. They are just less directly related to Wikipedia. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ED only looks like Wikipedia because it uses MediaWiki software. There is an element of parody of Wikipedia in ED, but the site is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Articles here are banned from linking to most pages on ED because of the potential for controversy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination is flawed by failure to link to previous AFDs. The 7 day period for discussion should only begin when the previous AFDs are linked here, so that discussants can see what has been said in previous noms. I note that the four earlier AFDs are also not linked from the article's discussion page. Found one from July 19, 2008 at which lists the earlier ones and copied and pasted it here. Edison (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Realistically it is only going to lead to the same "keep" result after going through the same arguments as previous AFDs.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me any fourth or fifth nomination carried through to a conclusion is an attempt to do by attrition what cannot be done by clear consensus. I assume the lister was unaware of the prior debates, but nothing has changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason it has been kept in past debates is because of trolls spamming them. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for the lulz. SixthAtom (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced. how many times do we need to go through this? sigh. Kaini (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close, easily meets WP:GNG. Why would we not want to give our readers useful information about something frequently mentioned in news stories? betsythedevine (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "frequently mentioned in news stories". Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a few Google News mentions (63); perhaps I was wrong to describe that as "frequently mentioned". In retrospect, I probably should just have linked to the GoogleGraph instead of arm-waving. betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT SPEEDY CLOSE this should be left up for at least a week if we wish to establish consensus. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and SNOW close. Why are we here again? - A l is o n  ❤ 01:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As if I expect an ED admin to vote in an unbiased manner. Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. Kaini (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ex-ED admin, actually. But whatev - A l is o n  ❤ 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; like it or not, it meets our notability guideline, as well as the all-important verifiability. They're for real and an important part of internet culture -- and they're positively cultured compared to 4chan.  (Yeah, I admit it, I get a laugh there now and then myself, even if their subliterate repetition of "gay" "lulz" "faggot" as well as certain other once-shocking words is tedious to the point it makes a literate visitor want to slit his wrists.) Antandrus  (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You had this to say about it three years ago. What changed? Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * lawl u guys so gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.137 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, whether one likes the views represented by the article or not, and whether one agrees with the subject of the article or not it passed WP:GNG. It has received quite a bit of independent coverage so I do not see a reason for deletion. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and troutslap- stop wasting afd's time with nominations like this. The article clearly shows notability beyond any reasonable doubt. Not liking it is still not a valid deletion rationale. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Could we consider this a bad-faith nom? --みんな空の下 (トーク &#124; I wanna chAngE!) 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I predicted long ago, it's inevitable that whenever an ED article exists, there will be people trying to get it deleted, and whenever it doesn't exist there will be people trying to get it recreated.  It's one of those eternal struggles. But it's a notable part of Internet culture, and the recreation of a few years ago in the wake of earlier deletions was upheld on account of the existence of external sources. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - as a matter of interest, the non is now blocked as a ✅ sock of User:Meredith McCasley. Same 'Zionist cabal' / white supremacist nonsense - A l is o n  ❤ 04:50, 10 January 2011 (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.