Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (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 speedy keep. No reason was provided for deletion. 1ne 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

 * - (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. I find it extremely hypocritical that Encyclopædia Dramatica's article be deleted by people, yet this article persists. Both contain similar subject matter and unverified information. Either both should stay or both should be deleted. This shouldn't be a political argument on the content on the websites or notability -- both are extremely notable and mentioned on popular websites -- but rather their verifiability and response to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. Stexe 04:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - ED got deleted because it was an attack page and contained original reasearch, whilst this article doesn't. You may also want to look at ED's 3rd afd and Uncyclopedia's 2nd afd. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Firstly, you do realise that that petition is a joke, right? And ED bashing isn't a very compelling argument in an AfD. ED's article got "Party v&" because the article was completely referenced from ED itself - and thus ran afoul of WP:V. This article seems to suffer from similar problems, too- DE   SU  05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Removed petition link. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - first of all, isn't Wikia (the site which hosts Uncyclopedia) also run by Jimbo Wales? That ought to mean something.  And not to mention, as said before, it's intended as a parody site, not just an attack on all things good and all that stuff.  Besides, a lot of Wikipedia users are on Uncyclopedia (including myself), and vice-versa, and deleting the page would kind of ruin the "claims the opposite" joke.

Of course, a bit of cleanup might be necessary...&mdash; Martin Ultima    &bull;   talk   contribs   leave message 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Srong Keep Same as what everyone else said above. Also, this nomination is close to violation of WP:POINT. Pacific Coast Highway { talk • contribs } 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't have an opinion either way as far as the deletion of the Uncyclopedia article itself, but all this ED versus UN discussion is rather pointless, since we all know what the outcome will be. One of the above commentators points out that "a lot of Wikipedia users are on Uncyclopedia", which is very true. In fact, many of the Moderators on Wikipedia are active members on UN. Therefore we know that this vote, even if the reasons for deletion are sound, will end up going for "Keep". Wikipedia tries to have objective, NPOV articles, but this is one case where personal interests will probably always prevail. It is worth noting, perhaps, that many Encyclopedia Dramatica users are also Wikipedia users, who provide excellent content. Contrary to popular belief, ED is NOT a trolling organization like the GNAA - it is a Wiki that tracks internet-related phenomenon, trends, and events, some of which happen to be trolling related. However, because of the Moderators' general view of ED, many self-proclaimed "EDiots" keep their supposed so-called alliances a secret to avoid unfair judgement. -- 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but wipe out all the material 'sourced' from Uncyc itself - Nearly three quarters of this article runs afoul of WP:V and WP:NOR. While the site is notable in itself, the article is in a sad state and not particularly encyclopedic (though it is rather fitting for this subject, teehee). This is what caused ED troubles (seeing that that particular subject was brought up), and it is causing this article problems now- DE SU  05:55, 21 January 2007 (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.