Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh No They Didn't


 * 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh No They Didn't
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm bringing this article for community review, as I am unsure of whether it meets the inclusion standards as a standalone article. This article is mentioned slightly and in passing in a few magazine sources, but the vast majority of the so-called "sources" are just links to threads on livejournal that have screencaps and such.

So, what do you guys think: NW ( Talk ) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While some sources are weak there are plenty of reliable sources included. 173.103.216.125 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the perhaps three sources that are not to the livejournal pages themselves, those only tangentially mention this community. I don't see that as particularly notable. NW ( Talk ) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: To me, it passes WP:WEB, but barely. Various sources mention it as a "top" gossip blog.  Passing mentions, perhaps, but it's not like you're gonna find in-depth research articles on gossip websites.  The article is concise, has sources, and is fairly well written, although it needs some sources to be "fixed" (as in, directly linked to the sources, not to the ONTD "articles"). SKS (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion/Merge Marginally it should be merged with the Live Journal entry, and at best one line noting it as the largest Live Journal community, which is essentially what it is. The majority of the article is self-promotion and publicity, as enacted by the members themselves, who continuously drive visitors to the entry to keep it alive. Voting for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.164.67 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no problem with the sourcing. faithless   (speak)  23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep although someone needs to update the article with info on their editorial approach, which is rampant copyvio jengod (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are enough sources for this to be permitted. — Kendra   Michele  — 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sourced and referenced in several notable places (RollingStone, MTV, Oprah's mag, etc) The article itself is really too large to be pushed back into the main page for Livejournal. Morhange (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe ONTD passed WP:N. First, as requested I am disclosing that I do have a vested interest in this community as I am a long time member. According to NW Guidelines I believe this article falls under categories 1 and 3.
 * 1) A topic "needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources." The guidelines also state that the article must have "consistent" mentions and not just a "short burst." I can assure you that ONTD (and the article should/will be updated to list these mentions in a more thorough form) has had consistent coverage for several years.  The article must also relate to a "subject of multiple non-trivial public works."  I believe that if a proper list of references is completed this will become more clear.  I'd also like to submit that while the mentions themselves in some instances may be qualified as minor, I firmly believe that multiple minor mentions far outweigh one or two major mentions.  The website is both noticed by celebrities and the media alike.  The website itself actually contains an entire "gallery" of celebrities who have willingly posted with ONTD "fan signs."  While the idea behind these signs may seem trivial, celebrities have gone on to "verify" that they do in fact read or are aware of "ONTD's" presence.
 * 2) In reference to guideline 3 of NW. The content must be hosted on medium which is "respected and independent of the creators."  I firmly believe that Livejournal while host to "personal blogs" has seen that ONTD is not simply a "blog."  Nor is it at all "personal."  It is a community within itself.  It is a repository of information that has warranted multiple media mentions.  "Editorial oversite" is present through website moderation.  The content itself is provided by members.  Livejournal, in this case, is simply the platform through which this is presented. RudeNotGinger (talk) 01:27, 19 June 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.