Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJ Drama


 * 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.  

Wow, a very tough one to close, and no way to do it without pissing somebody off. A simple vote count gives us 68% in favor of deletion. On both sides we have persuasive arguments from experienced users. Before deciding on this one I reread Consensus, WP:WEB, WP:Verifiability, and Deletion guidelines for administrators. In the end, although the site does smashingly well on the Google test and barometers of "internet fame", IMO the delete voters have successfully made the case that it falls short of notability as delineated at WP:WEB, and also suffers from fatal problems of verifiability. Thanks to all for participating in the discussion, it's DELETE by a hair. Babajobu 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

LJ Drama
I would like this article deleted or the passage regarding me ("nathanr") changed to represent the actual facts.

Reason why I would like it deleted:

a) Article (at least the passage regarding me) is filled with rumour and hearsay, and can damage a person's reputation. b) Information in said article (at least in the passage regarding me) is biased, false and is not accompanied by facts.

Yes, there's evidence to warrant its deletion. A person's reputation is at stake. The article is full of rumours/hearsay/gossip and second and third-hand information. I think that's enough.

While yes, it has created enough of a stir in the LiveJournal community, we don't need examples of "user conspiracies" because they seem to be full of rumours/hearsay/second and third hand information and usually not factual. They seem to do more harm than good.

I recommend: a) DELETE the article if the author(s) fail to delete "user conspiracies". b) KEEP the article if the "user conspiracies" are deleted.

LJ Drama is hardly a "notable site" as it slanders others. (and to those who say it is, you try being on the receiving end and see how you like it)

Nathan 06:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) This article is codswallop, and isn't even backed with facts. Only refers to biased personal attacks that are not relevant.


 * Delete No evidence that this meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Alph a x &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability (WP:WEB). Specifically, nominator's concerns not endorsed.  Ikkyu2 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with recommendation to Cleanup and Verify claims per Ambi's comment on the previous AFD Notable site. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to the claim "LJ Drama is hardly a 'notable site' as it slanders others.", the website's content doesn't define it's notabilty. Its visitors do; being cited by numerous online groups does. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Being cited by multiple online groups why? Because it slanders and defames others while claiming to be "satirical", all the while failing to respect people's privacy? Do people have so little of a life that they have to read about the misfortunes of others with skewed and sensationalist opinions? Why would anyone in their right minds read that tripe? You try being on the receiving end of months of cyberstalking (just because you did one thing wrong) and see how you like it. --Nathan 07:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I hold by my assertion that the site is notable, regardless of content. This does not mean that I agree with the content. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Being cited on online groups doesn't cut out verifiability standards. We require reputable and reliable sources. Some guys blog just doesn't cut it. I also refer to "A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources." That applies to allegations made by people on this site. There are no reliable sources cited as per WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, but I do believe that the site in and of itself is verifiable, and well-known in many internet circles. Some of the site's content may not be, but this isn't scrictly and issue for AFD. Nonetheless, I will amend my vote to Keep with recommendation to Cleanup and Verify. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Didn't this survive AfD already? This is a vanity AfD because Wikipedia is reporting something about LJ Drama and one of the things LJ Drama reports is this guy.  True or not, we report that LJ Drama reported it.  If we aren't sourcing any claims to LJ Drama, then we need to clean that up so Wikipedia isn't repeating the claims as fact.  However, what we don't do is censor Wikipedia because someone doesn't like what it says about them. Furthermore, the nominator doesn't understand our processes, and is blanking and inserting his own POV into the article because he doesn't like what it says. SchmuckyTheCat 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I understand Wikipedia's processes. I'm not an idiot, thanks. Every time I delete the passage about me (I count 8 factual errors), you put it back. (I'm perfectly happy to play this delete/restore game with you until my point is made) MY entire point (which you didn't notice) is this: Does "LJ Drama" back up any of their claims/articles with actual fact? No, of course they don't, and it damages people's reputations. We're very quick to judge others, but we aren't so quick to see the impact of sites like this on other people (one of them being me). Of course I don't like what LJ Drama writes about me on their site and on Wikipedia. Am I just supposed to sit and take it? And would you? -- Nathan 08:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No answer. So you're just going to assume that everything Wikipedia prints is accurate and sourced? That's funny, I didn't see a single accurate source on that little blurb regarding me ("nathanr")...no references save for one webpage that hasn't been updated in 5-6 years. Could my eyes possibly have be deceiving me? - nathanrdotcom  (Talk • Contribs)  02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm borderline as to whether this is notable, but if it stays, we really need to remove unverified stories as they do appear to be reported as fact. I'm not convinced the section should really be included anyway. -- Mithent 15:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. First, if the nominator finds the facts to be incorrect to the point that he can enumerate specific instances, he should rewrite the section rather than blanking it and listing the article here (especially if it survived an earlier vote). That comes close to WP:POINT. Second, does that section need to be so long anyway? It could be dealt with in a paragraph or two. Third, the site's notable IMO due to its association with the undeniably notable LJ. Fourth, for the nominator to assert that he wants his privacy when his user page links to his own website is a mite hypocritical. Daniel Case 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why would I want to rewrite the article? There is still the issue of people's privacy that needs to be respected? So what, I was the centre of some controversy in LiveJournal circles. That's the past, it doesn't need to be rehashed over and over. However, I'd rather have the truth than 8 factual errors. --Nathan 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per bad faith nomination. Was kept in a prior discussion.  "LJ Drama" gets 36k Google hits, "LJDrama" around 35k.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep fairly notable, and the Livejournal article is too long for this to be merged there -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Capitalistroadster and others. WP:WEB. PJM 15:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as crap crappy blog-cruft. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  21:40, Feb. 12, 2006
 * Crap is a deletion criteria? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see why this belongs in an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it exists as a notable internet community? Because it has a fairly interesting part in the history of another?  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not here to document petty LJ flamewars. At a minimum, the "Various LJ Drama controversies" section should be removed. It is unencyclopedic at best, and a mean-spirited invasion of privacy at worst. Rhobite 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So that's a content issue. The site itself is still notable, as consensus decided earlier. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So you won't mind if I remove the section then? Rhobite 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an issue for the talk page, which I have addressed there already. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be notable abakharev 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pending third-party verification. Nominator's reasoning not accepted, however. Ziggurat 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep *smacks forehead* I sure don't think it deserves an article, but I've argued for keeping other articles with no claim to notability outside of Internet popularity, so I guess it'd be hypocritical not to vote keep on this one. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not important in the long run.  Extreme verifiability problems.  Wikipedia's association with the Internet it runs on makes Internet culture seem extremely notable to some.  This is an illusion. silsor 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rhobite; if flamewars are noteworthy, we may expect to find articles related to nearly Yahoo stock message board, where flamewars are standard fare and have 1000s/10000s/100000s of participants & messages. Very bad precedent to keep this. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, just because you don't like an article doesn't mean it has to go. The number of external links leads me to think that it's a vanispamcruftizement. The nomination seems to be a content dispute rather than a genuine reason for actual deletion. It may be WP:POINT, but I'm going to say that this is a delete, per WP:WEB. Stifle 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a content dispute, one that was ultimately dealt with. External links are for sourcing purposes only, truly. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --  Wikipedical 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, no ranking, no independent sources. Melchoir 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For people who don't understand the strikeouts at the top of this page, I initiated the AfD and I withdrew it. The issue is now dead. - nathanrdotcom 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to change your own position. The issue is not dead. Melchoir 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User Melchoir seems to have taken it upon himself to reverse any change I make regarding the AfD. He should therefore post his reasons why he wants the article deleted. Also, so people know: This has nothing to do with me. Don't moan at me, this is out of my hands. - nathanrdotcom 07:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear: Delete per WP:WEB, no ranking, no independent sources. Melchoir 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which ignores that this is essentially a complementary article to LiveJournal, which exponentially exceeds WP:WEB. This content doesn't fit that article by size or context.  Notability guidelines aren't designed to be an axe to chop away established articles. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Livejournal is notable. It does not magically make things that touch it notable. If I search Google News for Livejournal, I get nearly 200 articles. If I search for LJ Drama, I get zero. "LJDrama" turns up a single hit, but the reference isn't in the article; it's an anonymous comment tacked onto the end, right after such insightful commentary as "asdf", "we did it for the lolz", and "Rfjason is a known troll - ignore everything the worthless scum says." I don't need to lean on WP:WEB here; if you don't like that guideline, how about WP:V? How about WP:NOR? Are we going to defend any standards at all? Melchoir 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * references have been applies, OR charges have been addressed. - and neither has ever been a deletion criteria. And no, the LJ article doesn't automatically make anything that touches it notable, as anybody that edits the LJ article regularly can attest, vanity entries appear routinely.  LJ Drama also appears routinely, within the article, in see also links, and in references.  But what LJ Drama actually is does not belong in the LiveJournal article.  Again, our editorial standards aren't there to be used as a cudgel, nor robotically, nor arbitrarily, but with common sense.  LiveJournal is a larger community of concepts, places, and ideas than JUST the website itself - thus, satellite articles make sense and are necessary in order for wikipedias coverage of the larger community to have a complete context. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * References haven't been applied.. Badlydrawnjeff dug up some links to old LJ Drama threads and Encyclopedia Dramatica articles. Joke wikis and blog comments just aren't adequate sources for Wikipedia articles. And don't forget that Jeff is affiliated with Encyclopedia Dramatica. For all we know, he contributed to the references himself. Rhobite 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which indicates that you apparently didn't bother to actually look at the content added. So much for WP:AGF, eh?  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are accusing me of bad fatih, see my reply below, which predates yours. Melchoir 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I was going to reply to your response, I'd do so under yours. Of course, I guess primary sources aren't reliable anymore.  Kind of a bizarre change in precedent. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I clicked on every link you added. Most of the references are either links to LJ threads, links to LJ Drama, links to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Many of them are broken links. In fact, the only reliable reference is the link to Ed Rodriguez's sex offender record. Rhobite 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As explained to you in talk, the "broken" links aren't broken at all - they demonstrate either former names used or deleted/suspended journals, as noted in the article. I believe there is only one ED link, and that's to demonstrate the opinion of some people as noted in the article.  They're primary sources, as has been spelled out to you.  And your accusation/implication that I contributed to any of them is entirely without merit. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may seem mergist of me to say so, just because information is useful (and I agree that there should be some mention of LJ Drama) does not mean that it should have a separate article. A sentence or two in the main LJ article could describe all the relevant and externally verifiable information, and that seems to me to be quite sufficient reference. Ziggurat 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me rewrap this series in response to SchmuckyTheCat above. There are no reliable sources used in the article. In good faith, I have independently looked for reliable sources addressing LJ Drama and found none. Not only is the article unverified, it seems to be unverifiable. Deleting the unverifiable is common sense. Melchoir 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. We're writing about LJ Drama and the various claims made by LJ Drama. It's an easy to answer question, For claim X, did LJ Drama actually make the claim?  Click the link, and there it is.  It's the same standard you could set for the New York Times.  Did they publish X as fact?  Provide a publication date for the NYT with X as fact, and go look it up.  There are several places where more outside sources should be found for external facts; for instance, the state sex offender registry for Ed Rodriguez (which does exist), but LJ, LJ Drama, and ED, are reliable sources for the subject itself article according to WP:Reliable Sources.   SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to quote, the full quote is, "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." And that's just the bit about primary sources. Reading on, we get "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.". This article is certainly not just about the content of LJ Drama; the allegations, the controversies, the spinoffs, the popularity-- all these sections contain material on other subjects that cannot be verified. The very existence of the article is a claim to notability, which has not been verified. We have WP:WEB precisely so that we don't have to hurt our brains on cases like this. Melchoir 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment To be honest, I can't even find a single verifiable source that supports the (deleted) blurb about me ("nathanr"), aside from myself. - nathanrdotcom 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as in the previous AfD: "LJdrama was prominent enough to cause quite a bit of a flap on LJ with its actions. Putting it in the LJ article would not really be relevant (not to mention bloaty) because it's a separate community with its own sites that just imports from and targets LJ." I don't see what has changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So much of a flap that we can't find reliable evidence that it occurred? Melchoir 03:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire article is filled with inaccurate information and I doubt that the people with accurate information will come along to clean it up. -Jameth 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to (regarding "nathanr"/me) but decided against it because it would raise too many red flags and privacy issues...and dredge up something that happened 5-6+ years ago (originally a private issue between two people until it was posted). It's on my talk page (archive section) if anyone wants to be nosy and read it, as accurate as it can be because I can't find any sources either. - nathanrdotcom  (Talk • Contribs)  02:47, 18 February 2006 (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.