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. Since this isn't your average AfD, I'll explain this close somewhat in depth. Firstly, going by counting votes (which one of course should never do at AfD), the overwhelming majority want this article kept. However, since this is not a vote count, that is only a contributing factor to the result. Going through the delete votes, there is a clear idea that Encyclopedia Dramatica does not pass two notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:N. There is general agreement however, that there is at least one reference that asserts notability, that being this article. So we have proof that it is somewhat notable, if not in multiple sources.

Secondly, there are many votes that simply conflict each other without any proof or evidence of what they are saying, e.g. "Does not pass WP:WEB" and "Passes WP:WEB." Clearly, people have differing views on what an article requires to pass this guideline. And yes, it is just a guideline, not a policy. It does not have to be strictly followed, like, say WP:BLP.

Thirdly, the article was fully protected until 2 days ago, so not allowing any changes to the article could possibly have skewed the debate somewhat.

Fourthly, while many of the websites shown are trivial mentions to some, to others the opinion clearly differs as to what is trivial and what isn't. This is perhaps an issue that should be discussed further on the relevant guideline pages. Additionally, there are going to be more mentions of it out there. Just because they aren't immediately available to you doesn't mean they don't exist.

Fifthly, many of the delete votes do not provide sufficient reasoning for their opinion, e.g. "hate site" is not a reason to delete something. Nor is "attracts drama". Yes, there are similar keep votes, but there are substantially more of people wanting to keep this overall, and in any case the de facto result for these is keep – it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable.

Sixthly, I'll make it clear I do not endorse the content on Encyclopedia Dramatica, particularly its coverage of Wikipedia and its editors. As an encyclopedia however, we need to keep a neutral point of view on such issues. We cannot ignore subjects because they are critical of us.

Finally, whilst I have no doubt in my mind I have closed this fairly, I am very sure this will be taken to deletion review. That's fine with me, I know that whichever way this was closed someone would be unhappy. In all, I hope I've done the right thing here. Thanks, Al Tally (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Nothing more than an advert for a site which co-ordinates vandalism and attacks Wikipedians and adds little if any encyclopedic value to wikipedia, WP:DENY. Has a few links but they all seem to be trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without prejudice to relist after the article is unprotected. How are editors to improve the article, use the ediprotected tag? This will surely slow things down for this timed debate. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above comment does not express an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Also, I have made numerous edits to WP, and am anonymous here for the sole reason that expressing an opinion on a page like this one means that a certain subset of editors will label one as a 'troll' and cause trouble elsewhere on the wiki. 86.27.233.17 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's fallacious about the argument is that it labels as "trivial" a major newspaper article[3] that devotes only half of its 898 word length to the article subject (calling its treatment of two different events a "roundup"), dismisses three sources as trivial without examining them because they're not online (actually, at least one is - it's just a pay site and the story leads with a mention of an incident on ED [4]) on theory that everything else is trivial so these must be too, and dismisses a two minute long story on a national news network[5] that describes a notorious incident on the site as trivial because "I wasn't watching TV that day". Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are obviously projecting your (ill informed) bias onto this article. ED is not 'devoted to trolling wikipedians' despite what you may think. Only the ones who abuse their influence and power. You can go ahead and go on and on about how 'vulgur' or 'vicious' ED is, but all you are doing in the end is painting yourself as prejudiced. ED meets WP:WEB. This has ceased to be a discussion, and has devolved into people airing their dirty laundry, and wanking about how ED is the internet incarnation of Beelzebub. - DLB — 71.135.183.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

arbitrary section break 1[edit]

Most of the mentions given are not very specific to ED, mostly just concerning web culture with a trivial mention of ED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanna (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "omgbbqdramaz" mean "keep", "delete", or does it just mean "omgbbqdramaz"? Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 2[edit]

Keep For frak's sake! This article was only just created and it's already at AfD?!? Several citations with WP:RS. Certainly much better coverage than the recently saved First Internet Backgammon Server. Please apply policy consistently. Give the article some time to grow. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)struck through by administrator hu12 blocked sock account[reply]

politicians Torontonians reading this discussion. Howa0082 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, I would just like to state that we, unlike Wikipedia, do not automatically ban users of websites we dislike, simply on the basis of that membership. Wikipedians are free to participate on ED without harassment (although they will receive the normal amount of "hazing" we give our active members). This bias that Wikipedia so blatantly holds against ED is hypocritical, drama-inducing, and goes completely against the Wikipedia's goals of NPOV and complete reliable coverage. (I ask you to pardon the logical fallacy of my argument, in light of the fact that the same fallacies are being used in arguments pro-deletion of this article.) -- Finney 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.230.87 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 May 2008— 72.71.230.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

arbitrary section break 3[edit]

The headache will be there either way. Either in maintaining the article, or the fact that next month, when the next article gets written that talks about ED we'll all be back at DRV, then AFD one more time.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will be comparable to having a live article that anyone can edit 24-7. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite protection might be a possibility, given the attention-attracting nature (and not always positive attention) of the subject. GracenotesT § 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the results from LexisNexis for a keyword search on “Encyclopedia Dramatica” – a newspaper database that has over 20,000 sources of authoritative news, company, financial and market research data:
  • Mentions anywhere: 3 newspapers, 2 newsletters, 15 registered blogs.
  • In the headline: no articles
  • Major mentions: 2 articles, both registered blogs.
  • 3 or more major mentions: 2 registered blogs.
Because editors will likely ask, the three newspapers that mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica are:
  • Jonathan Dee, “All the News That’s Fit to Print Out,” The New York Times, 1 July 2007, Section 6, p. 34.
  • John Hind, “Observer Magazine: What's the word TL; DR,” The Observer, 5 June 2005, p. 7.
  • Neva Chonin, “Sex and the City,” The San Francisco Chronicle, p. 20.
I cross-checked the results with Factiva and Google News. All trivial mentions, as the above. Google Books offers two hits, both of which appear to be trivial mentions as well as likely false positives. JSTOR and Google Scholar make no mention of the subject at all. The bottom-line is that there isn't really anything to work with.
Overall, I think that the subject (at this time) unfortunately fails WP:NOTABILITY for a Wikipedia entry. Sorry, J Readings (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, I'm responding to the request from the anon IP (86.31.102.215). The above search results are the total pool of independent, third-party reliable sources from commonly accepted search engines used for Wikipedia good article creation. It would nice if there were more sources generated by these search engines. There simply aren't. J Readings (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just proves that the search was faulty - it missed major reliable sources that are already cited in the article. Search engine hits don't prove notability (this subject has about 150,000 of them), and a lack of search engine hits certainly doesn't prove lack of notability. If we wanted to base notability on a search engine we could have a bot do that. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree. I believe you're referring to a plain vanilla "google" search, correct? That doesn't have anything to do with the pool of independent, third-party reliable sources that I mentioned. Google searches can generate anything from spam to unregistered blogs to personal websites with absolutely no editorial oversight. LexisNexis and Factiva, in contrast, limit themselves to newspapers, magazines, and registered blogs--the former two focusing entirely on our requirements. JSTOR and Google Scholar limit themselves to academic journal articles, the most preferred sources according to WP:RS. Google Books, by definition, limits itself to books. All of these sources comply with editorial oversight and fact-checking whereas a simple google search does not. In fact, it's useful--not because of the hits--but because it helps us to find future material for the article's use that complies with WP:RS. As for the other sources mentioned in the article, frankly, they were neither "major" nor devoted to the subject. Wikipedia guidelines require a demonstration of notability based on articles written entirely or mostly about the subject. Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia Dramatica has not enjoyed that kind of coverage yet. Regards, J Readings (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Thanks for the info on that search - that will be very useful for my usual business of writing articles! But when I referred to faulty methodology, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that it seems to have missed the two of the three most significant sources, both major mainstream news sources that are national in scope: MSNBC and National Nine News (related to MSN). That's not a good hit rate. Better to adjust the test to accurately measure the facts than to deny facts that don't fit the test. Wikidemo (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Hmmm. Interesting issue. I'm really not part of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT verus WP:ILIKEIT discussion at all. I'm also not persuaded by the other stuff exists on Wikipedia argument. Surely, those articles should probably be reconsidered, too. What really concerns me here is that -- with the exception of one, reliable, third-party verifiable source -- we're talking about trivial mentions in articles devoted to other topics, not about the Encylopedia Dramatica itself. That conflicts with WP:N. Like you, I'm primarily concerned about writing a reliably sourced article: what can we use and verify? MSNBC is interesting because it's a television channel. Suppose I'm interested in watching the broadcast, how am I supposed to do this based on the information insufficiently cited? As it happens, LexisNexis provides television coverage for such channels as CNN, so I was hoping to read the transcript. Nothing registered. That's unfortunate because I now have to take the word of whichever editor provided the reference without ever knowing which program it was on, what time of day, the title of the show, and whether the Encyclopedia Dramatica was the actual topic of the broadcast, let alone whether the program even existed. It conflicts a bit with verifiability, doesn't it? Again, it's not about the google hits for me. It's about finding material that complies with policies and guidelines. And it's a shame, really. Personally, I'd like very much to vote "keep" for this article. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that it doesn't currently meet the requirements for inclusion. You may well be right, but we have inclusion requirements for a reason; why should this article be exempt from them? Horologium (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we can have an article about Fred Bauder's wiki, wikinfo, then we can have one about ED. I will also point out that this is definitely a reason why IAR was created. Deleting this would be nonsense since it is going to exist at some point. It has a good start and with special attention, it will get better. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, he's been around since July 2005 with 567 article edits... so at least he's not a SPA. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ED does not have a sufficient number of sources to guarantee an unbiased article.
  • ED carries several hateful, defamatory, and inaccurate articles about Wikipedia editors.
I am sympathetic with the second argument, but only in light of the first. If ED is non-notable it would indeed be hurtful to people to have an article for it on Wikipedia. It would lend legitimacy to a website which self-admittedly is not interested in telling the truth.
However, if ED is notable and we can write a good article about it, Wikipedia would be doing a great service to the people harassed by ED and the world at large. It would provide an unbiased and accurate description of ED, based not on someone's personal opinion or on the website itself but rather on secondary sources, and it would serve to counterbalance the confusion and misguidance that arises from reading ED's description of itself. In short, if it is possible to have a good article, then it is useful to have a good article, so the "never!" argument which is not based in Wikipedia's policies should be discounted.
There are now additional sources which both demonstrate ED's notability and certify the NPOV status of the recreated article. Thus, without reservation I submit this opinion and I hope this article will be an excellent example of Wikipedia's time-tested policies and goals producing their desired effect on a controversial subject. Shii (tock) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Face it, if you were to delete every article just because it is based on the harassment of Wikipedians, you would probably delete Myspace, Facebook, Uncyclopedia etc. There is no point in deleting notable websites based on harrassment from vandals and ED editors per WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
To the point, we should keep this article because it has meet the standards of notability (third-party resources) and it has been mentioned numerous times on the news. PrestonH 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth all the drama. Delete and be gone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is interesting, notable and sourced. Let's not be offended by criticisms. Such sites only increase the popularity of WP.Biophys (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that people will respond to this post reasoning and debating the ins and outs of this post. My point is, don't. You are infinitely more likely to have any positive effect if you click 'Random page' on the left, learn about something new and try to improve its grammar/syntax. Or just stand up from your computer and go for a walk.
As pointed out above, I have a reasonably large list of (positive) edits, however I am posting anonymously because I dont want to be tarred with the brush of someone who tried to speak reasonably on this issue. 86.27.233.17 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 4[edit]

hard pressed to call even 2-3 sentences about a subject "trivial" -- see Fact 5; Nina Chonin's article mentioned ED once as the place where the prankster she was writing about happened to post; What makes a publisher notable? -- see Fact 3; It's not obvious whether Norton is arguing for or against notability of ED, as an expert on what Noroton is arguing, I can tell you that I'm arguing, in that post, for constructive discussion & adherence to WP standards, and I said in my "delete" post that I'd withdraw my opposition if adequate sourcing is found; by the formal notability guidelines WP:N and WP:WEB (which has its problems) ED is notable, -- see Fact 18. Noroton (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the response, levity, and even-handed approach. I think the discussion is rather constructive and remarkably civil, more so than quite a few AfDs I could point to on uncontroversial subjects. There's that saying "easy cases make bad law". Here, a hard case potentially raises awareness, strong good faith arguments on both sides by experienced, passionate Wikipedians. That lets us stress test the notability guidelines and what they mean, how to use them. Lessons learned are applicable when we question whether a new book, or local celebrity, etc., should be here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list starts well, being entirely fact based, but the conclusory statement (why should Wikipedia make an exception to its notability guidelines for this article?) doesn't accurately represent the argument. First of all, it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria. Reasonable people can (and do) differ in opinion on this point. Second, even if it does not meet the criteria, as I've said before, that is not an automatic categorization of non-notability. It merely means that the arguments for notability for this article are not explicity spelled out. Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability. I think it's disingenous to present that conclusory statement as the only possible conclusion from these facts. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about the final question in my post, but it's an actual, sincere question, not a rhetorical one. If my facts are solid, then I think that question should be answered in order to get the best Keep argument. Since this discussion is supposed to be closed by an admin looking to the best (or at least the "acceptable") arguments on both sides (and discounting others, as per what's cited in Fact 18), then paying attention to facts about the sourcing, facts about policy and facts about what Wikipedia says is an acceptable argument should get us into a more constructive discussion. Reasonable people can differ, but the more facts they can mutually agree on will probably narrow their differences and sharpen their logic. Arguments for notability need to be either explicitly spelled out or easily inferred. Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability. That depends on the details. Some things are open to interpretation (see my next point), but either the standards in WP:WEB or WP:N are met or they're not, if they're not and you still want to keep, you want an exception. it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria but the criteria aren't open to a whole lot of debate because you can only interpret non-trivial so far before an interpretation looks ridiculous, and the faster we can stop wasting time on counter-factual arguments and unconvincing interpretations, the better. One side's going to lose this, and the more facts we agree on, the less bitter the pill that the losing side has to swallow. Noroton (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to think of it as we all win (with an improved encyclopedia), just not in the way we expected. I seem to read the notability criteria in a completely different way from you. You seem to think that anything that doesn't meet the criteria laid out is inherently non-notable and therefore requiring an exception (outside of existing guideliens). Whereas I read it as anything that doesn't meet the criteria is of undetermined notability, and requires only a reasonable argument as to why it is notable (within existing guidelines). The other fundamental dispute in this discussion is about what constitutes a non-trivial mention. I will submit that simply counting sentences is a poor way to measure this, as it makes no comment on the actual content of those sentences. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD discussions that I've seen, especially the more contested ones, always revolve around what you can explicitly prove meets the standards, or whether your reasonable interpretation of the standards has a consensus. Other arguments can be made, but in a contentious AfD, closing admins look more closely at what can be linked to criteria. But I haven't participated in AfDs that much recently, and I don't participate in all areas. As for sentence count, see my response to Smashville just below. Noroton (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in any Wikipedia guideline or policy that requires a non-trivial source to have a minimum number of words or sentences. So, given all that you've added, why should we ignore the guidelines merely because of the size of the sources. The ninemsn article and the News Review article are very, very clearly non-trivial. Unless you can show me the focus of those articles is something other than ED. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paying attention to the guidelines means not calling a source "non-trivial" if it resembles a brief summary of the nature of the content. We also have, in Footnote 2 of WP:N: The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial. The way to judge whether something is trivial or non-trivial for WP notability purposes is to consider whether it resembles these two descriptions or whether it more resembles this definiition of a "significant source" at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail [...]" Looking at that definition isn't in the language of WP:WEB itself, but it seems to get us to the spirit of the guideline, and WP:N has influence in this, too. Can you tell me with a straight face that a two-sentence mention in any source is not "trivial"? A three-sentence mention? Five sentences? I mean, we can all agree, can't we, that the word trivial was put into the notability pages for a reason, right? Does the five-sentence source come closer to fitting the description of a "brief summary" or "brief mention" than it does to a source that addresses "the subject directly and in detail"? It isn't the five sentences, which is shorthand for "really short", it's the obvious brevity that we all can see when we click on the link. There's a gray area somewhere. I think it comes with something a bit more substantial than the MSN Nine News source. I don't think you can call any five sentences anything more than a brief mention, because if Wikipedia standards were that low, we wouldn't really need standards at all. People who are not straining to keep or straining to delete this article would, I think, tend to think five sentences doesn't cut it. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation to call it "non-trivial". Noroton (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in a number of deletion discussions on various topics with an open mind, and I would nearly always consider a five-sentence article about a subject in a major publication, or five substantive sentences on the thing in a longer source, to be a non-trivial mention that would add weight to notability. Not enough standing alone, but something that adds to the argument. I interpret "trivial" to mean exactly that, trivial. It's strain of the language to call five sentences in a newspaper article trivial. Newspapers don't waste words. They rarely spend more than a sentence to say someone died, or founded a company, or is somebody's father. If a newspaper goes out of its way to explain something, and that's the sole point or one of only a few points in the article, that is not a trivial mention. The "brief summary of the content" example is in a sentence that doesn't even parse, but it's apparently meant to discourage web directories. It's not an edict that content is less important than other things. Nowhere do these guidelines say that to be non-trivial is to address "the subject directly and in detail." That's not what non-trivial means, and it would impose a higher standard. If you look at WP:WEB it is not a precise instrument. You just have to read what it says and go with it. We don't get anywhere wikilawyering the Wikipedia guidelines by positing that they redefine common words. Examples in Wikipedia guidelines are haphazard - the people who write (and often edit war) over the examples are not trying to establish an analytical framework for each example to have a zone of influence, with the outcome judged by which example it is closest to. That's only one of many ways to understand examples, not a rule. The guidelines are not written by lawyers and just don't stand up to that kind of scrutiny. Overall, when an Internet site has articles written about it in several major publications, as with this one, it would be quite a stretch of logic to say that does not fit the language of the notability guideline.Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're at a point where we disagree on what "trivial" is in this context. I'll leave it at that. wikilawyering isn't about close reading and details, which is inevitable whenever something is hotly contested and guidelines and policies are involved. Nothing wrong with it if you don't lose track of what the guidelines are about. Noroton (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false argument a) because we aren't even supposed to take the Alexa rank into consideration and b) because if we did, a high Alexa rank (2,250 out of over 100 million) would seem to do the exact opposite. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the weakest argument in the entire AFD. Even when we did use Alexa as a criteria for inclusion of websites, which was years ago, any site under 5,000 was easilly within what would "justify or connote notability". I'm pretty sure I remember Carlossuarez voting to keep articles on sites with vastly lower Alexa rankings... --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really can't be bothered to argue your point, then posting an opinion which is the exact opposite of what you actually believe is a little silly. It's also a little unfair to say everybody voting keep is doing it "For the lulz". --Tombomp (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not !voting Keep for the "lulz" as you said, but I'm looking at this article objectively and from a NPOV and surprising the soucres offer enough about ED to give it notability. The hell with the drama, it's a notable site at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also not voting keep for the "lulz" (I'm guessing that's a variation on LOLs...). Voting because the article is sourced and meets WP:WEB. Honestly never been to the site (I understand there's a good chance of genitalia popping up on my work computer...not something I want to risk at work), so I'm definitely not coming from the WP:ILIKEIT category. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "lulz" is what the ED denizens are getting by having their article up here finally. No comment on the keep voters; I'm sure your reasonings are just fine. I personally feel that the two sources that this is being hung on are insufficient, but it's bluntly obvious that I'm in the minority, so why argue it? It's going to be at the least a no consensus. *shrugs* I'm expressing my opinion. I don't feel we need this article, but if were opening up our definition of "non-trivial" through it, then we're going to have it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So ED finally has an article on Wikipedia, and? Not to be rude Tony, and I know you mean everything in good faith, but why does it matter if the site has an article. The sources give the site just enough notability to be included her and honestly if they are, good for them. It's not a matter of winning or losing a battle with "ED trolls" (not your words, but I've heard the phrase used), it's a matter of doing what's right based on our guidelines. I've been proud to say that when I edit here I check my opinions at the door and try my damnedest to look at everything from a NPOV, and this article is no exception. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Fact 5 Noroton (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my response. You're just arguing semantics now. The ninemsn article even has quotes. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the two articles that are devoted to it above, of course... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles, or eight or whatever, constitutes a clear establishment of non-notability. If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources, not just blogs and not just brief mentions in passing. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um you have read WP:N and WP:WEB yes? They say nothing about "If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources". JoshuaZ (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". What constitutes "multiple" and "non-trivial" is entirely a matter of subjective debate, and my two cents worth is two is trivial and multiple means in the hundreds. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 5[edit]

Comment: Could you please rephrase the question? My understanding is that editing Wikipedia is based on a consensus formed around commonly accepted policies and guidelines. Without them, chaos ensues. Why would we want to ignore policies and guidelines in an AfD? Incidentally, I agree with SheffieldSteel's point (above) that too much time was spent on expressing personal preferences (i.e., WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc.) rather than focusing on legitimate points within the guidelines. Currently, the only real disagreement (as far as I can tell) on the table is the differing interpretations of the word "non-trivial" and "trivial" in the notability guidelines and how it relates to the current list of potential sources in the pool of known independent, reliable third-party sources. Everything else is just unhelpful noise for a closing admin, in my opinion. Regards, J Readings (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the question basically, "How would deleting the article improve the encyclopedia?"? That seems to be a fair one, seeing as our policies and guidelines exist to document successful ways of improving the encyclopedia. Per Ignore all rules, the power of rules is conditioned on their success in guiding us to improve the project. When they don't do that, they aren't really binding.

That might not be the question that Nwwaew meant, but I think it's one that's worth asking nonetheless. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test Criterion Analysis Result
WP:NOTADVERTISING ...is, um, not advertising... The article seems pretty neutral in its coverage, does not have the tone of an advertisement, and is sourced. Pass
WP:DENY ...denies recognition... WP:DENY is an essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if it needs to cover websites where trolls and vandals gather to advance that goal, it will. Whether it denies recognition is irrelevant. Pass

WP:WEB (must meet only one criterion)

...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself... except... [m]edia re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site... [t]rivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. Please note that I could check only the sources with online links. This is the best: [10] gives enough information that I would call it non-trivial, but not extensive. [11] and [12] provide a only brief summary of the nature of the content. The others only mention the subject or provide a very brief summary. Again, I could only check the sources with online links, but I was only able to see that ED was the subject of one... Fail
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Not that I've heard. Fail
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for [t]rivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) ED is self-published. Fail
WP:N's General notability guideline ...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. While [13] and [14] do provide only brief summaries, etc. individually, together with [15] and the minor sources, I think that ED does pass this test. With WP:N, there isn't the restriction that each source must itself be non-trivial, where trivial includes a brief summary etc., and these sources can snowball into significant coverage. Pass
  • WODUP, If you think this article passes WP:N but not WP:WEB, then you should conclude that it is notable. WP:WEB is an alternate way of meeting notability rather than an exclusive standard. I don't think an article can pass the WP:N standard without multiple sources that are non-trivial. Noroton (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your position, but I haven't seen anything to affirm it. Actually, articles that pass WP:N are only presumed notable while articles that pass WP:WEB are deemed notable. Right now, we disagree on what sources are necessary to pass WP:N, too. I think that the wording of the general notability guideline allows for multiple sources with less-than-optimal coverage to establish significance together where that significance couldn't be established if the sources were taken individually. WODUP 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel at this point ED could have entire articles dedicated to it on CNN, and be one of the most popular websites of all time, and the decision will still be to delete it just because WP:IHATEIT is going to be ignored, and people are going to let their own prejudices get in the way of completing the encyclopedia. As many others said, this is why a good deal of people left the project in the first place, and I hate to agree, but I do. --HALtalk 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section 6[edit]

Wasn't there a Fox News story on them a while back about blowing up vans? HAXXORS ON STEROIDS PWNS J00 WITH VANS

also

keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.122.11 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section 7[edit]

  • To be fair, ED attacks several individuals, not merely Wikipedia in its entirety. But that is still not an argument to delete, at least not at AfD. Those who prefer what imho is a somewhat high-handed hush-up approach should pursue this at a more appropriate venue, e.g. WP:VPP. 78.34.133.49 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for posting these links. Possible copyright infringement issues aside, these three cases finally explain why LexisNexis and the other major online newspaper databases did not pick up the MSNBC and CNN stories. In all three cases, the broadcasts are in no way about the Encyclopedia Dramatica. The MSNBC story is clearly about Craigs List and a prank. The ED is briefly mentioned for literally a second. In the case of CNN's stories on the 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theory, it's worse: the ED is actually not mentioned at all. Screenshots? I've read and re-read the guidelines. Screenshots are not covered by WP:WEB or WP:N. Surely, no one here is seriously going to argue that screenshots (assuming those were even of the ED, nothing was displayed on the screen to indicate they were) are prime examples of "non-trivial coverage" in the mainstream media, when the ED was never even the subject of these stories. Better to focus the arguments on sources that at least discuss the ED. But in any case, I do appreciate finally learning why LexisNexis never registered these stories about the ED. They weren't about the ED. J Readings (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Piepie (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP-ED saga would be great material for a meta-Wikipedia but not so much for Wikipedia itself. Either way, the results of this will end up on ED itself. Now, whether the WP admins decide to continue feeding the trolls by denying them a single legitimate page, we shall see. —bersl2 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. Someone's doing one: encyclopediadramatica(dot)com/Wikipedia_Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica

--Piepie (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolwut? Celarnor Talk to me 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this AfD is serious business. shasYarr!/T|C 08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I really dont understand the point of being so strict with notability. It isn't like there is really a size limit to how big wikipedia can get so I don't see what we gain by arbitrarily deleting some articles while keeping others. Yeah, I get that wikipedia isn't a "star trek wiki"/"warhammer wiki"/"spider man wiki" but I don't see what really gets broken by letting those topics exist within wikipedia. It isn't like they exclude other articles by virtue of existing. Beerslurpy (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since you raise the subject, may I mention the fundamental difference between Uncyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Dramatica for the purpose of this AfD? Uncyclopedia.org is a classic example of WP notability, whereas Encyclopedia Dramatica struggles to meet our notability guidelines. It's worth pointing out the similarities and differences here for the editors who keep thinking incorrectly that this AfD is somehow about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Both are parodies of Wikipedia. Both poke fun at Wikipedia and its editors. Both promote misinformation and disinformation. The important difference is that Uncylopedia can justify an article on Wikipedia thanks to the sheer amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Regardless of what's in the Uncyclopedia article now (and, to be fair, there are a few third-party sources but editors need to add more citations), I count over 24 articles in mainstream newspapers via LexisNexis that write just about Uncyclopedia as the subject of the article. Here are a few example titles by mainstream newspapers: "The Uncyclopedia on Harry Potter", "War of words over Ulster 'Uncyclopedia'", "Satirical Website Criticized by Tourist Board." The Sunday Telegraph (London) considers Uncyclopedia to be among "The 101 most useful websites" on the internet. They don't think that about the Encyclopedia Dramatica. The Seattle Post considers Uncyclopedia to be "the Onion of wiki sites." They don't mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica. The Guardian (London), The Advertiser (Australia), 24 Hours (Toronto, Canada)--all alert their readers to Uncyclopedia as the website to read. As far as I know, they don't (yet) alert their readers to the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Heck, even Jimbo Wales mentioned Uncyclopedia on The Charlies Rose Show, so we can't really claim that this AfD is about censorship of things we don't like. It's about fundamental disagreements about the notability guidelines. Personally, I remain unconvinced that the sources offered are anything but "trivial coverage". I understand that some disagree, but I suspect that we will be forced to revisit the wording of the notability guidelines to avoid this kind of disagreement in the future. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 20:03, 19 May 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.
More