Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shii/ED


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was suspended. The ongoing deletion review is surely the final word on the matter; please let us not fork the debate. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shii/ED
An ED article will never exist. A userspace version is thus counter-productive. Will (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep during deletion review. This is a userspace draft created for a current Deletion Review here and which at least one contributor of that deletion review requested that a user space version be created so it could be considered. Several contributors to the DRV believe this is sufficient to establish notability (personally I am not persuaded either way at the moment - its closer to notablity than previous attempts have been). I know of no policy that means if the subject of this draft meets our notability guidelines it cannot have an article. Keeping this draft for the duration of the deletion review is the right course, depending upon the outcome it can then either be moved to the mainspace or deleted. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Even if I were in favor of not having an ED article at this point, we should allow attempted articles. I'm very worried by the nominator's statement that "An ED article will never exist" I would hope that Will agrees that there is some hypothetical level of coverage at which point even he would agree that we would have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If ED (not 4chan, not /b/, ED themselves) gets to be a top 100 Alexa site, or organise several seperate RL events independent of any other website, then yes. But this isn't it. Will (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So why does ED require such a standard than other websites? We are an NPOV encyclopedia. Our inclusion criteria are not determined by whether or not we like a topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what notability should be for websites. But ED's notability is so marginal, riding on 4chan's coattails, that Wikipedia Review has a better shot at it. Will (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you think that's what notability should be for websites then you may want to try and get WP:WEB deleted and then deal with a lot of websites that have articles like Talk Origins Archive and Conservapedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for now, no harm in people having a good shot at creating an article. If the DRV fails then delete it. Viridae Talk 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if the DRV fails it's still close to an acceptable article. A mainspace ED article could do harm; a userspace article created in good faith for this purpose should not be deleted, at least not yet. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator’s rationale (“An ED article will never exist.”) is disturbing. Furthermore, this version was created specifically in response to a request at WP:DRV (by User:Starblind). — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Nominator's personal bias against ED is both clear and troubling. While I agree that many aspects of the website in question are extremely distasteful, notability has been clearly established with the widespread sources and cable news coverage. --Truthseeq (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep while the DRV is going on. The community can decide there whether it wants the ED article or not; there's no harm in keeping a draft in userspace in the meantime, and it can be deleted if the DRV closes as delete.  krimpet ✽  22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep during the pendency of the DRV per Dave, et al., without prejudice to relisting should DRV not permit recreation (I don't, for various reasons, see this as G4able upon the community's not overturning deletion, but I gather that there exists a consensus that, should the DRV fail, this should be deleted, and I can't say that I'd bother to object should the creator not mind). Like Truthseeq, I would suggest that the decision to nominate the draft for deletion is exceedingly bad, and I think it unfortunate that my advice to Will that, in view of his personal feelings about ED, he take a step back from the ongoing discussion, or, at the very least, not do anything disruptive, was not heeded.  Joe 23:54, 6 March 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.