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 - we've been through this too many times, and last one was far too recent. See my comments on the last AfD. Al Tally ^talk 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a completely non-notable website. It fails WP:N (more specifically WP:WEB) and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Alexfusco⁵ 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails per fails Notability (web) in Criteria section Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Of course it meets WP:N, alexa says it's notable (3,000th), and the article isn't POV. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-19-2008 • 02:53:05

If the article isn't POV then why does it state only positive things about ED, and makes no mention of criticism and it doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what criticism from reliable sources are we to include? Protonk (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- lacks notable source coverage. I mean I see some news coverage, but it needs far much more notable references than it has, at least ten times the current number of refs. William Ortiz (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean, just to be clear, that the article would need 200 sources. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I was being sarcastic to make a point. William Ortiz (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, and I was this close to responding with something about how it would need OVER 9000 sources!!!! but on the off chance you were serious, I held back.  ;) Protonk (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, ED is in 2,459, according to Alexa. XD Seriously, I believe this AfD was done in bad faith, and is an excuse for the nominator to say I don't like it. As for the lack of a neutral point of view, I recommend fixing the problem. Hamako 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the website has a traffic rank of 2,459, that doesn't make it notable. Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, just because a large number of Wikipedians dislike a site, that doesn't make it non-notable. Not directed at anyone in particular, but among those claiming non-notability as a basis for deletion, it's going to be quite difficult to sort out those who actually believe this from those who simply wanted something a bit less obvious than "delete because I hate it." It's worth pointing out that it's only been two months since the last AfD, which was indeed quite an expansive discussion including a large number of people -- what has changed since then? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly a notable website. It has a tendency to go against wikipedia's grain despite using the same software, but that is not a reason for us to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep For the lulz and for the mudkipz. Also for Longcat, who is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Haven't we gone through this already? There are a few issues with the prose, but sources such as this have me convinced that the site meets WP:WEB. Also, the involvement with Jason Fortuny is a notable part of the site's history, as is the involvement with Anonymous and Project Chanology. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part, though at the same time a little surprised that this showed up for AfD again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've been through this before. How does this fail WP:N? At all? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, ED was covered again by Dibbel at a talk for GLS 2008. Talk discusses and reprises elements of the wired article, but is distinct enough to be a source. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• GLS source added. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Given how much drama there was in the last AfD, we should get a break from this. The nomination behaves as if nothing had been said before. If the article isn't NPOV, fix it, don't delete it! As to notability, it's obvious that the site isn't completely non-notable. This is a silly nomination for a silly reason. Stop it, now, please. --Abd (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Do we really, really need to start all this drama yet another time???? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong or Speedy Keep. Aside from meeting the usual criteria for keep, this article is a tribute to Wikipedia and our ability to "be the better man". If anyone tries to argue we censor topics we dislike, let them come to this article and see that Wikipedia CAN work. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep No need to rehash this again. Notability has been established per the last AfD. Plvekamp (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong/Speedy Keep. For goodness sake! Seriously are we actually re-hashing the same old bull again?? This does not fail any of the criterion for deletion or notability, why oh why are we doing this again? I think someone has a bad case of "I don't like it". ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also gais check out mai usarbokz! :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Really? Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One, the article doesn't seem to have a POV to me, and two, one look at the page makes it obvious to me that it meets WP:N. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not totally keen on the site myself, given that I've a page there and I'd not lose sleep if the entire site disappeared up its own .. well, y'know - but for the meantime the fact is that it easily meets WP:N. It's been cited in enough sources already (SFGate being one that immediately comes to mind). But yeah, keep :/ - Alison ^❤ 06:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - How many MOAR citations does an article need to establish notability? Further more, any claims of an article not being notable without actual evidence supporting the accusation is always suspicious. A bad case of "I don't like it" perhaps? Rilak (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We already went over this on the DRV and the second AFD, and a pair of new sources have appeared since then --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis nomination is a complete waste of time and is the sort of thing which gets wikipedia a bad name for naval gazing and, well, over dramatising things. It's obviously not going to get deleted. Someone please close this. Nick mallory (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous AfD discussion. As noted, the article is sufficiently sourced already and we shouldn't demand anything more than we demand from other articles. Can we please lay the thing to rest? Or at least come up with some new policies on how to deal with, er, articles that prove excessively dramatic in Wikipedia deletion debates? Or at least make a policy that specifically says "only one speedy-closed borderline-vexatious {GNAA/Brian Peppers/Daniel Brandt/Encyclopedia Dramatica} {AFD/DRV} nomination per editor"? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As of this post, there are eighteen independent sources - more than enough - to establish notability for the website. As for NPOV issues, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. If you don't like the look of it sort it out. There are lots of badly-written articles on notable topics. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple sources show notability, and if npov is a problem, tag it and explain your reasons for it--Kip Kip 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above, notable subject. Jезка (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep I'm pretty sure there have been more than 3 nominations. JuJube (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.