Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 25 March 2006

Encyclopædia Dramatica

There are no reliable third-party sources (see WP:V, Wikipedia:Reliable sources) which discuss this non-notable website. Quote from the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

The content of this article is unverifiable, and any discussion of its content (i.e., the entire article right now) qualifies as original research. Delete as nn and unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete for nonnotability. --Nintendorulez talk 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. "encyclopedia dramatica" gets 11 unique Google hits (out of 248,000 total), all of which appear to be related to ED, Wikipedia, or Wikicities. On another note, haven't we gone through this before? H e rmione1980 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NN. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Says WP:NN - "This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last three VfD/AfD's. Leave it alone already. Septentrionalis 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per GNAA #8, you are voting on the page itself, not its previous AFDs. Have you found a reliable source for this article? Ashibaka tock 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough already, sheesh. AfD shouldn't be used to get a result because you weren't happy with it the first time. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17k googles and a 32k alexa ranking. We have plently of articles on websites that contain almost no information that is verifiable information from reliable sources. Not even Slashdot is sourced. kotepho 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it ought to be. WP:V is policy, not a guideline. Ashibaka tock 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is only policy. There is concensus shown by many AFDs and articles that we can go without WP:RS sometimes. Do you deny that if this was Slashdot it would have already been speedy kept? kotepho 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reliable sources could concievably be found for Slashdot, but not for this site. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change the policy if necessary. Scranchuse 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to delete this? If "no reliable third-party sources" made a page eligible for deletion (and define reliable, etc...), 99% of Wikipedia's current content should be wiped off. --Boborok 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a longwinded way of saying that it's non-notable. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable website. Any WP:RS issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Why''' do you want to delete this? If "no reliable third-party sources" made a page eligible for deletion (and define ''reliable'', etc...), 99% of Wikipedia's current content should be wiped off. --[[User:Boborok|Boborok]] 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 *:It was a longwinded way of saying that it's non-notable. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. Notable website. Any [[WP:RS]] issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Blu Aardvark|(talk)]] | [[special:contributions/Blu Aardvark|(contribs)]]</sup> 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)