Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica
• Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (6th nomination)

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)

• Keep. Has been mentioned in a wide variety of news outlets including The New York Times. At some points in the development of the current version of the article, the reference list was actually nearly as long, or maybe longer, than the article itself. Its attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians are utterly irrelevant; WP:NPOV requires that we cover those who hate us, and/or that we hate, in an evenhanded manner regardless. Opposition to this article seems based more on fear and loathing than on logic. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I repeat the same arguments I had in this discussion few days ago - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8 - there is a lot of secondary sources, last being the feature article in ninemsn - [1]. --Have a nice day. Running 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - ED has a page "ED in the news" with many sources, that proves ED's notablility a little bit more. The site is banned to link, so copy + paste + add the dot
  • encyclopediadramatica com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:ED_in_the_News --Have a nice day. Running 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• bloody hell - can we GO three days without an ED debate? can we? --Random832 (contribs) 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - i guess that's what they call wikidrama :) --Have a nice day. Running 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The most recent DRV closed with recreation allowed, AFD optional. It hasn't actually been discussed on AFD in ages, only in DRV terms (i.e. ready for recreation). --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Still fails notability test in my mind, mostly trival mentions, no direct coverage. Really a wiki-only phenomenon. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- Encyclopedia Dramatica is a notable website among internet users. The article is well sourced. If Livejournal and Urban Dictionary can have a page I don't see why Encyclopedia Dramatica should be left out of the group. Deathawk (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Please explain how the site fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. It has a higher Alexa rating than Uncyclopedia. The article isn't an advert in any way, refering to the site as "coarse, offensive, and frequently obscene" (something which would never be allowed in many articles) And by the way, the fact that the site attacks Wikipedians is irrelevant, as WP:DENY isn't policy, and doesn't preclude Wikipedia's goal to be an embodiment of all human knowledge. We don't delete the article on Al-Quaida because it gives unwanted attention to terrorists.--Urban Rose 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sweet Jesus Keep The place has been covered quite a bit by international news, and I'm sure I can dig up some stuff right now that'll clarify importance even more. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Tentatively meets notability guidelines, seems to have the potential to moreso. Well put-together and cited, what's all the up-in-arms about? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ED has a series of pages which contain vulgar mocking of several WP editors, and the site is generally highly critical of WP. Thus many editors get up in arms whenever the subject arises. Z00r (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The scope of the sources looks just fine to me. Not all of them are directly about ED, but there is enough here to indicate that it meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE Must I explain to you exactly how this site sexually humiliates our editors? I did not want to post here with the terrorist sympathizers, but you forced my hand. Many of their latest articles attack our admin corp. I won't link to it because as of right now it is lesser known, since no one really reads ED anymore because they have realised that doing so aligns them with cyberterrorists. Does that make you feel good? Aiding and abetting sexual humiliation and cyber stalking? Or are you under the impression that a free encyclopedia just builds itself, regardless of whether or not we have editors? I am part of the silent majority and our voice will be heard. If that offends you in some way, I suggest you take a deep look into your soul and find out if you have any empathy for another living, breathing human being. Are you one of these "free speech" nutcases that thinks it is ok to deface the Virgin Mary with excrement or something? Because that is what Encyclopedia Dramatica amounts to. The Voice Of Your Heart (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You just explained why the article should remain on Wikipedia. It is certainly notable if it inspired this sort of response. This is not up for dispute. Jameth (talk) Jameth (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Being an atheist, I don't really care about someone defacing the Virgin Mary with excrement or something. Besices, your arguments are like copied from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Have a nice day. Running 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ... Sorry, you're calling people who write for that site TERRORISTS? If you present a reasonable rationale for the removal of an article, ED will take it down. I am, actually, one of those "free speech nutcases" that believes people have the right to say what they will without religious fanatics like yourself telling me I'm a hateful sinner for not believing in Jesus and behaving like a "good Christian." What the hell kind of argument was that, anyway? And quite frankly, the articles on some of the admin are healthy to have. Sure, they're crude, rude, and lewd. But you know, I like knowing that some admin are the scariest power-mongers to ever grace the internet. Keeps me from running afoul of them, and I can keep contributing to Wikipedia in peace. Plus, it's funny. If you don't think it's funny, don't read it, for the love of Ducks. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we can't have it. This article is a Keeper. Howa0082 (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment (To "The voice of your heart") I'm sorry to say this, but people like you shouldn't really be editing Wikipedia. You make it blatantly obvious that your only interest in voting "delete" is to further your own personal agenda against that site, not to improve the encyclopedia.--Urban Rose
      • Comment (To "The voice of your heart") You have to be kidding me. Unquestioning loyalty to admins is a terrible stance to take. We are all human, and we all make mistakes. People who are ostensibly entrusted with a common public good like wikipedia should be expected to live up to high standards. Are you seriously going to start defending Erik Möller and how it's ok to advocate for pedophilia now? - DLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, rather notorious website. Reliable sources demonstrate notability - here's one that devotes an entire article to profiling the site.[2] The article is hardly an advertisement - it's a standard attempt to describe a web service that happens to be antagonistic towards Wikipedia. Refusing to print an article about something just because it upsets Wikipedians is somewhere between sour grapes and censorship. If you're going to understand Internet culture, this is a signifigant piece of it.Wikidemo (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, Speedy close. Articles ought not to be nominated for deletion while they are fully protected. First, that lets administrators game the system to have the upper hand. The only way to nominate for deletion while under protection is to use the administrative privilege of editing protected articles, so that's using admin tools in a content dispute. Second, the normal process of an article up for deletion is that if there are deficiencies in sourcing, notability, relevance, etc., they can be fixed through the editing process before a decision is made. That can't happen here, so the legitimacy of any result to delete would be in question. Wikidemo (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Non-admins can nominate for deletion by placing the AFD notice on the talk page. That is considered sufficient given page protection. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • On the wikigaming front I'll also note that this passed a deletion nomination less than two months ago. What has changed since then or is this just a second spin of the wheel? Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict x2), as the one who cleaned up the sources earlier today, almost every source there only mentions Dramatica in passing. Two just define it. I don't think Fortuny's use of the site automatically conveys notability on it, only on himself. If he'd done the same on his personal blog, we wouldn't be allowing an article on that blog. Unless someone can produce some true, significant coverage, I just don't see how this site meets WP:WEB, and why we should have an article on a site that's blacklisted from even having its URL posted anywhere. And, as a side note, I have no idea if ED is an attack site or not, never go to it and have never really heard of it before today. So I'm basing my comments purely on the article and its sources. Collectonian (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your "blacklisted URL" argument only suggests that the URL should be removed from the blacklist, not that the article should be deleted.--Urban Rose 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A number of blacklisted sites have articles about them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 21:00, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Thoroughly cited; it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to pretend it doesn't exist, and despite the hassles we've had with it, we cover much worse. I don't believe in the "borderline notability means we get to toss neutrality out the window and decide on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT" style arguments for deleting it, and I don't believe that its notability is as borderline as proponents of that argument make out. And as we've just hashed all this out at DRV I don't see what is to be accomplished from doing it all again so soon, so I'm tempted to advocate not just a keep but a speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Collectonian regarding the sourcing issue: fails WP:WEB. Anything Wikipedia-related tends to receive enhanced attention in Wikipedia discussions. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources mention ED only in passing - cobbling together lots of trivial mentions does not create the level of sourcing needed for an article. Not having an article does not mean pretending that ED doesn't exist, it just reflects that the site doesn't have the depth of third party coverage necessary to meet our inclusion criteria. Needs more extensive coverage before we should have an article about it - not more sources, just one or two more that are actually about ED, rather than ones that simply refer to it's existence. WjBscribe 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What about this one?http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 That's not just in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)
    • It's debatable whether even that source, which provides more detail than any other we have links to, actually meets the requirement of substantial coverage. You could easily describe this source as providing only a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, meaning even this source doesn't meet the requirements of WP:WEB 1 (3). And you need not one but at least two sources that provide "non-trivial" amounts of coverage. WP:WEB demands coverage in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent Noroton (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • For goodness sakes, that's not debatable! It's an article in a major national news outlet devoted entirely to the subject. That "brief summary" thing is meant to discourage using guides to prove notability, not to knock out feature articles because they're written entirely about a website. If triviality is the threshold there are a dozen articles already cited that are not trivial mentions (unless you wish to reinvent what the term "trivial" means). They describe newsworthy events that happened involving ED and got a lot of press. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• As much as I dislike the subject, there was a clear consensus to recreate at DRV. There is sourcing. Extremely weak keep. Corvus cornix_talk 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Fully protecting an article going through AFD defeats part of the purpose of AFD - to allow improvements to the article to demonstrate why it should be kept. Unprotect. Exxolon (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The notability argument keeps being thrown around, but look at Uncyclopedia's press coverage. It's a bunch of trivial mentions, mostly from other wikis. But that article isn't constantly being put up for deletion. Sometimes notability falls outside the "reliable sources" realm, especially when we have statistics from places like Alexa that show it is a significant site. -Kevman459 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Keep. ED has been mentioned in a wide variety of news stories and meets notability guidelines, even if they are mean to people on the Internet.Dantsea (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • — Dantsea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is your personal dislike of the subject matter so great that you must now reduce your rebuttal to IDON'TKNOWYOU? Dantsea (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, as I have not commented either keep or delete in this AfD at this point. Acalamari 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, though you have highlighted one of the reasons I usually edit from IP only, and don't get involved in matters like this. Dantsea (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah...struck out. Acalamari 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Either way, This !vote was added by Dantsea, Who has made no other edits in the past year and a half.--Hu12 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Also, I don't recycle and I love foie gras. Dantsea (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Here are the sources from the article:-
  1. Neva, Chonin. "Sex and the City", San Francisco Chronicle, Hearst Communications, 17 September 2006, pp. p.20.—A trivial mention in a roundup of cyber-prank news stories.
  2. "Privacy", Warren's Washington Internet Daily, 12 September 2006.—Couldn't find online, but judging by what it's cited for, trivial as above.
  3. Dee, Jonathan (1 July 2007). All the News That's Fit to Print Out. Magazine p. 5, 34. The New York Times.—A trivial mention in an article about Wikipedia.
  4. Davies, Shaun (8 May 2008). Critics point finger at satirical website. National Nine News.—Not very long and certainly not indepth, but finally, an article about ED.
  5. Douglas, Nick (18 January 2008). What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'?. Gawker.com.—Is Gawker.com a reliable source? In response to a reader query, this piece gives a brief into to four different websites, of which ED is one.
  6. "2 Do: Monday, December 26", RedEye Edition, Chicago Tribune, 16 December 2005, pp. p. 2.—Couldn't find online. One of four sources used to cite the assertion that ED has been described as "coarse, offensive and frequently obscene".
  7. Mitchell, John. "Megabits and Pieces: The latest teen hangout", North Adams Transcript, 20 May 2006.—Ditto.
  8. Hind, John. (5 June 2005). What's the word?. The Observer.—A trivial mention in an article explaining "TL;DR".
  9. Cassel, David (8 March 2007). John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked. AlterNet.—Trivial mention in an article about an e-terrorist group.
  10. Anonymous Protests Outside Scientology Sites. Londonist (11 February 2009).— Trivial mention in an article about anti-Scientology protests; for perspective, www.whyaretheydead.net and www.xenu.net are also linked.
  11. Man Posed As a Woman to Elicit Personal Ad Responses. MSNBC. 12 September 2006.—I wasn't watching TV that day, but see #1 above.
  12. Dibbel, Julian (18 January 2008). Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World. Wired.—Trivial mention (two, to be fair) in an article about internet culture.
  13. Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction. Global Television Network.—This isn't actually a reference so much as a hint that one might exist. See also #1.
      

  After all that, I can't see a demonstration of notability. Only one source really writes about ED, and that piece really is very short. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a fallacious argument. The reason that the article does not have the best sources available is because it was undeleted yesterday and is protected so noone can improve it. SheffieldSteel should argue on the basis of the reliable sources which can be found to demonstrate the notability of this topic currently, and not the ones which are currently on a write-protected article. The whole point of wikis is that the community can improve badly written or sourced articles, it is fundamentally unfair to judge this article while it is protected. 86.31.102.215 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is very likely that these are the only sources that exist, given that large numbers of people help to improve articles related to Wikipedia (for obvious reasons) and so there will have been a much bigger effort to find sources for this article. Yes it was undeleted yesterday, but people have been trying to get it undeleted for months and have performed a near-exhaustive search for sources in that time. If you know of any other sources then list them here - this page isn't protected. Hut 8.5 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I also see no major demonstration of notability. seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, Collectonian and Sheffield Steel. Looking over the sourcing, only the Nine News source gives anything close to "substantial" coverage, and you need more under WP:WEB or WP:N. Provide more sourcing, change my !vote/opinion. Noroton (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Seven sentences plus examples. That's all the Nine News article has. And they're short sentences. I'd call that approaching substantial, but if that's the best there is, there isn't enough. WP:N clearly requires at least two, the way that guideline is currently written. WP:WEB requires the same. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not quite notable enough yet. I said to allow relisting at DRV, and now it is. If it had another 1-2 sources like the MSN, I would say keep. Also, more AFDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Permanent Keep... Sweet fuck! I'd say keep! It brings the drama to the internets... The war between TOW and ED is still going on... TL:DR --Creamy!^Talk 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a common misconception. ED does not hate TOW, we just have issues with some of the hypocrisies shown by members who have been entrusted with sysop status (re: Sceptre, MONGO). Quite a few ED sysops and users (myself included) constructively add things to the wikipedia project. It's the disgust with the factionalism and political alliances that distort objective records of people and events on this "collective" project that we find objection to. We do not represent ourselves to be anything short of ridiculous, your pretentious masquerade as some sort of objective collective of 'all human knowledge' is both laughable and sad at the same time considering your current structure and often idiotic bickering. - DLB
    • The "articles" on Phaedriel and Sceptre would tend not to support your characterization. Corvus cornix_talk 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per my nom. Sadly, those arguing for the value of material that is substandard, inadequate and unencyclopedic and suggesting that such articles be kept regardless of those facts damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia. Unfortunatly 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 the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed.--Hu12 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: It exists. It is popular. It is moar popular than Uncyclopedia. See here.--Piepie (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alexa is not an Inclusion criteria. Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". This is not a valid rationale. --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So you would deny Toe Fat an entry? --Piepie (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Just because some Wikipedia Editors find the content offensive does not mean it does not exist. I can type in any bizzare unheard of term and bring up an article on Wikipedia, but an incredibly popular human website deserves to be deleted because it 'offends'? How about GodHatesFags.com? I demand Westboro Baptist Church articles be deleted because they OFFEND me! Way to go, you tools. - Anonymous — 68.101.8.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep per nontrivial source http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 Z00r (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Corvus Cornix. It passed a DRV. There was consensus to recreate. It has sources. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No bias against an AFD at the DRV. Additionaly this has failed multiple AFD's.--Hu12 (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And passed at least one. The "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again" strategy has been constantly used by whichever side doesn't get the upper hand at any given time. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep' Notable. Can we please go at least a month or two without having to slog through this tired old discussion? At a certain point, constantly AFDing or DRVing the same article become blatant pointy disruption... --ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The bias shown by some editors is horrifying. This site clearly meets WP:WEB, anyone saying otherwise is not fooling anyone. Please stop gaming the system by making absurd claims and try to back them up by throwing around links to WP:EPTBOP (Essay Pretending To Be Official Policy); it's rather annoying as I have to follow all the links only to find out it's an essay (not policy, not even a recommendation) that is only loosely related to the subject at hand. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone, no matter how offensive the subject might be for you and me. Deleting Encyclopedia Dramatica's article won't magically remove ED from the Internet. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia with the sum of all human knowledge; removing content just because the large majority of Wikipedia's editors strongly dislikes the subject in question is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery out of this project's goals. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia projects in other languages have no problems whatsoever with keeping an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, there are never any "trolls" disrupting the article. In fact, most of the "disruptions" this article suffers from consist of clear wikigaming (removing sources, starting disputes over trivial matters, etc) from people who, for some reason, can't sleep at night as long as we keep a completely innocuous article on some website popular among some Internet subculutures. Please, grow up. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, you don't win experience points every time you get an article you hate deleted. On another note, I'd also like to point out that this isn't the 2nd nomination for this article, it's the 5th. First nomination, (delete) second nomination (keep), third nomination (no consensus, keep), fourth nomination (delete). -Mpontes (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Honesty. Thank you for reading between the lines and trying to be objective. Honestly this whole situation has gotten rather ridiculous with the petty vendettas many editors have blatently flaunted. -DLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.183.190 (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes all wikipedia guidelines. JeanLatore (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Close: I don't care to actually say "keep" nor "delete" right now. This nomination was very inappropriate, IMHO. Consensus for this article was just reached a day ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And to clarify my point; The article was restored yes, after there was more agreement to do so (opposed to leave it deleted). The chances of this discussion actually resulting in delete are very slim, if at all existent. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets criteria for inclusion, notability has been established, and the subject is covered in reliable sources. When that is the case, we don't get to exclude something simply because we don't like it. ED exists, and a version of the article has been authored that meets Wikipedia's criteria. Let's move on. - auburnpilot talk 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep wasn't there something on the talk page saying to wait at least a month before trying to AfD this? Keeping my opinions to myself until such a time that a valid AfD comes up. JuJube (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing comment on the DRV. "Regarding listing this on AFD, I don't see a clear consensus here that this needs to be done immediately, but nor is there a consensus that AFD should not be used. ". DRV is not AFD, assuming they are is incorrect--Hu12 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I meant on the talk page. Seriously, kicking up a dirt storm won't help affairs at all. :( JuJube (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per AuburnPilot. VegaDark (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, in my own words at the DRV: passes the requirements, no more no less. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Even aside from this article easily meeting policy requirements, it's really bad form to keep renomming an article over and over and over in hopes that one of the AFDs will actually stick. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if the website offends you, don't go there! Jtrainor (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to pass WP:WEB. There are articles that discuss it, in depth. The entire news9 MSN article is devoted to ED. It doesn't make sense to hold ED to a tougher notability standard than every other article simply because we don't like the site itself. Despite what the nom and delete votes say, if we have numerous incidental coverage in addition to at least one FULL RELIABLE SOURCE ARTICLE devoted to site it question, notability really should be considered established. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Where, besides the MSN/Nine News article, is the second non-trivial source? Noroton (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is the worst possible timing of an AfD I have ever seen. The consensus on DRV was very strong and the only thing you are going to achieve here is another strong consensus to keep. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is relevant wiki content - I even knew about this popular site long before reading the said wiki article.Gregg Potts (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this is already notable enough by far. JIP | Talk 05:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because it seems that a lot of this is just a general sense of hurt being translated into a decidedly biased AFD. There are various terms which could be used to describe this move, but I will say that the reaction more or less verifies claims to notability. --Alex-jon (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP: notable, higher alexa rank than other websites that have wikipedia articles. dont let past problems between wikipedia and encyclopedia dramatica stand in the way of WP:NPOV. its notable. - Badmachine (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Why are we having this deletion discussion just a week after consensus was established here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_8? As it stands, the site is notable, even if the sources are trivial, the number of sources is enough to make it notable. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is not clearly established, and on top of that it's a attack site devoted to trolling Wikipedians. Even though our internet culture coverage is relatively well-developed, there's innumerable things people interested in that stuff could be working on that wouldn't involve giving more attention and visibility to this vicious little website. Why all the energy expended on this one topic, then? It seems likely that the primary drive behind this is coming from ED members, who of course would be doing so purely with the intent of trolling us, to stir up "drama". Delete this and then let's forbid anyone from bringing this up again for at least five years, by which time ED will hopefully be gone and forgotten. Everyking (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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).

• Keep. The subjects notability is established by multiple reliable sources and most of the "delete" votes are just rants about how ED is a "vile attack site" and "trolls". Continuously resending something you don't like for AFD is, in my perhaps irrelevant opinion, disruption. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What about bringing this issue back up repeatedly in spite of past consensus and with complete insensitivity to the feelings of other Wikipedians? That isn't disruption, I suppose? In my opinion, it's easier to argue disruption when the people whose actions are in question actually intend to disrupt the project—do you think it's disruption to oppose people who are trying to disrupt the website? Everyking (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No one is trying to disrupt the project. This whole recent incarnation of the ED article was brought about from agitation within the wikipedia ranks, not ED. It has notable 3rd party sources now, and has had to jump through more hoops than most articles due to its controversial nature. Give it a rest. -DLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.183.190 (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, (edit conflict) and I'd like to note that not a single Delete vote has even begun to approach valid deletion criteria. We've had "It's just not notable", "I don't like it", "It offends me"... only argument that has even been valid has been that none of the sources discuss ED in great detail, and that argument was countered by the sheer number of sources that mention ED. McJeff (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a reason to delete. Its sourced and passes WP:WEB. This nom skirts quite close to WP:POINT. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as I said I would opine when closing the DRV for this. (I closed as "recreate" since that was what the consensus was for, but I did disagree with the outcome.) Basically, I agree with WJBscribe's analysis of the sources here, I think the mentions here and there illustrate some smatterings of notability, but nothing really concrete. While I disagree with Everyking's argument that the website's attack agenda against Wikipedia should cause us to delete the article, I think that discriminating between real informational websites and satircal websites is fair. If this were a real informational website, an article based on smatterings of information might be useful enough to justify inclusion since coverage of real informational websites is helpful to academia, but for a satirical website I don't think smatterings is a strong enough basis for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This strikes me an awful lot like saying that articles about websites we like have one standard to meet and articles about websites that we don't have a different standard. The content of the site shouldn't be a factor indetermining notability. To do so would seem to run counter to WP:NPOV, passing judgment on what content is good and what is bad. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that I'm going to have to support Keep. This is a horrible website that I would love to see die in a sea of fire, but it passes our inclusion criteria. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I may not have a million and a half edits on Wikipedia, but I still think that this kind of censorship is very un-Wiki-like. Go on all you may regarding lack of definitive sources, but truthfully I've seen stubs (using the "random article") that are ten times worse and are completely unverified or verified by poor sources. If Wikipedia is truly to be an encyclopedia, it cannot simply skip over a subject simply because it is unpleasant, insulting, or just plain dumb. Yes, I've read ED, I lurk there quite a bit as I find lots of their articles quite entertaining. I think the article on Wiki is perfectly sensible - it states very plainly that ED is a shock-wiki - and that this AfD is simply a knee-jerk reaction due to some bad blood in the past between the two sites. Wikipedia should take an NPOV and remember that, even if ED doesn't look favorably on Wiki, NPOV states that Wiki should take an objective standpoint and not get into an AfD pissing match. My two cents... Froginabox (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for obvious aforementioned reasons. This Web site is certainly notable. Just because it offends certain Wikipedia sysops does _not_ mean that it needs to be excluded from Wikipedia. Jameth (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Notable project and well sourced article about it. Fact that some people from English Wikipedia hate ED is not valid reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It passes the criteria for notability, and I think it would be good to realize how the naysayers are basically putting bullseyes all over themselves. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep That the site "co-ordinates vandalism and attacks Wikipedians" is largely irrelevant. The sources seem sufficient to me. Also, AfD is not a battle of attrition. Maxamegalon2000 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I believe the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete on the DRV I voted to relist because there was one source treating ED by itself. However, reading WP:WEB, I see that it says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", so it doesn't really pass it, and the re-creation was premature. ED needs a bit more coverture before satisfying notability requirement. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Has more than trivial coverage in most of the sources, and is the subject of one of them. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. NPOV must be restored, and we have to stop this knee-jerk reactionism to do so. That means no more covering it up and hiding it, which is against everything we're for. The selfish actions of a few notable editors who happen to have pages on ED should NOT be able to be fuel for keep its recreation from happening. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete just too trivial with no real importance outside wikipedia itself. All the reasons that Corey Worthington should not have been kept apply hear. A mention in the NEWS does not make a subject, person or thing notable. No doubt wikipedia will see this kept and the return of Corey Worthington. I'm still think it and its ilk should be deleted though. David D. (Talk) 08:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You may want to have another look at general notability guidelines and WEB notability guidelines. Both specifically state non-trivial coverage in news is exactly what makes a subject notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - how on earth does this site pass WP:WEB ? Fails criteria 2 (no awards for either the site or its content), Fails criteria 3 (it's not carried independently by a respected medium) and , Fails the remaining criteria. User:SheffieldSteel has shown that the media mentions are almost entirely trivial and/or peripheral. Beyond trivial mentions of them simply existing I cannot see that the required multiple reliable sources have written primarily about them. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Many of the sources are weak, but the Craigslist ad controversy, the ninemsn link, and the passing reference in a Wikipedia-themed NY Times article seem to squeak it (barely) into notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The sourcing is quite decent, meeting WP:N/WP:WEB to reasonable standard, and in a broader sense notability is fairly obvious (considering traffic statistics, WP:SET and so forth). I certainly concur with the spirit of WP:DENY, but nuking articles in direct response to misconduct doesn't deny recognition -- it affords it, while simultaneously setting a very bad precedent. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - Article is protected from editing, Deletion review is inappropriate at this time. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

• Keep, meets WP:WEB, namely criteria 1 ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). The North Adams Transcript (look it up here, but you need to pay), ninemsn, Wired and Gawker articles are all non-trivial, at the very least. Please don't speedy close this AFD, allow the discussion to runs its course so nobody can complain. Neıl ☎ 10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ninemsn, Wired and Gawker articles are all non-trivial, at the very least. No, Neil, it's not the nature of the source organization that has to be non-trivial, it's the amount of coverage that has to be non-trivial. See WP:N#General notability guideline, especially footnote 2. A trivial amount of coverage is what these sources gave to ED (except for MSN/Nine News, and while that's not trivial, it only borders on being "substantial"). See my comment below for what I found in your North Adams Transcript article. Noroton (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant website. Doesn't meet notability standards -passing mentions in tandem with Wikipedia don't cut it. - Nunh-huh 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep basically per Neil - Wired and Ninemsn in particular are most definitely significant coverage. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They are "most definitely" not significant coverage as WP:N clearly defines significant coverage. That Wired article has two sentences mentioning ED and meets the WP:N definition (in footnote 2) of "trivial coverage". You need better sourcing to meet WP:N or WP:WEB notability requirements. Noroton (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated a few times above, fails WP:WEB. Far more trouble than it is worth, for such a marginal article. SQL^{Query me!} 11:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, NPOV and multiple coverage by WP:RS. User:MilkFloat 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ecx2)Keep; "it attacks our editors" (not intentionally quoting anyone) is not a justification for deletion. ninemsn is of the biggest news sources in Australia, and Wired is big on teh interwebs. Meets WP:WEB. Oh, and add the URL, you're violating some portion of the MoS. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural keep - come back in a few weeks. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Like another ED AFD is just what we need, to keep the drama going. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per User:SheffieldSteel...the "sources" are not compelling enough to warrant an article.--MONGO 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although I think it could probably use a bit of a rewrite as I'm not sure about it being completely Neutral POV and the language seems "off" to me (don't ask me to explain that cause even I'm not 100% sure what I mean). Maybe turn it into a more neutral stub and work on making it a properly encyclopedic article. Stuff like when it was started, name changes, etc. using articles like Wookiepedia and Wiktionary as a template. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: clearly meets standards for notability. various coverage, sources. Apelike (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I mean, this IS an online encyclopedia, right? Not a private, "we-only-post-about-people-who-agree-with-us" site. --Faolchu scatha (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per SheffieldSteel's analysis of the lack of sources available. Hut 8.5 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well-sourced and seems to meet all applicable standards. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete, especially when the exercise of free speech is what people don't like. Kate (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If Wikipedia removes this article they should remove all of the other articles that upset different segments of the population. They should also admit to being biased in that case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.192.150 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Neil and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE : ED is a vehicle for criminal harassment and actual monetary extortion! see here: http://girlvinyl.livejournal.com/461933.html ED frequently has "articles" that are used only for harassment and feature nonpublic personal information, such as resumes, street addresses and other contact information, unauthorized DMCA infringing pictures, etc all in a context of libel. And ED "support" tacitly endorses these illegal activities and gross invasions of privacy, defamation, etc.Em otter (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • An anonymous comment on Live Journal is hardly a good source to cite for anything. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although I thought it should go when it was up for Deletion Review, I have to grudgingly admit that the current article looks like a proper article, with refs. Even if there are not many articles discussing ED in depth, it gets quite a number of trivial mentions, which add up to some good sourcing. Merkin's mum 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The current status of this article is such that it satisfied the notability requirements for online sites. The content on the site aside, this would be a no brainer, and objectionable content does not equate to "no article." Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: That North Adams Transcript source: So I read Neil's comment above (10:21, 15 May) calling the North Adams Transcript source, "non-trivial", and I said to myself, "I'm actually going to spend money to buy this article and confirm that there is another source of non-trivial coverage of ED. It's the least I can do to advance civilization." And so I committed $2.95 of my hoarded wealth to buying this non-trivial source for the wealth of knowledge it will bring me about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The entire coverage from the North Adams Transcript: "Encyclopedia Dramatica ([Web page address to ED article about MySpace]) really cuts to the chase with a long, blunt, vulgar essay on MySpace that is pretty much on target. Drama, they assert, is what fuels the interaction of teens and drama, obviously, transfers to any online venture that teens make themselves part of." There follows a one-sentence quote from the ED article about MySpace. Two sentences and a quote. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the definition of "trivial coverage", Neil. And that's $2.95 I'll never get to spend again. Noroton (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, and also this page has caused alot of drama since it was created (edit wars and the discussions in this nom, for instance). Also, I'm very sure this article is just going to attract more ED trolls, and I can already see quite a few in this page. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Sheffield Steel's excellent analysis above. The only reliable, non-trivial coverage based on my own Google News and Google News archive searches^[3][4] was last week's ninemsn article. ninemsn is an Australian joint venture of MSN and the Nine Network television network and it's used widely as a reference elsewhere on Wikipedia.^[5] Personally, I think this 297-word article, combined with the other passing references, put the subject just under our threshold of notability, however I suspect others may look at it and decide it's just enough. If another news article like it pops up, then I say give this subject an article but until then, delete. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. Not need for non trivial mentions in reliable printed sources. Unless more come up, delete.
  • No part of WP:WEB requires anything to be printed. Online sources work fine. --Smashville^BONK! 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Keep per ninemsn article which is very, very clearly not non-trivial. --Smashville^BONK! 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And WP:N and WP:WEB very, very clearly require more than one non-trivial source. Wheres the other one? Noroton (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is ridiculous, we are arguing like little children about triviality and non-triviality again and again... yes, there is for example the Gawker.com article - but you are immediately going to reply "HA! That's not non-trivial enough!"--Have a nice day. Running 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I'd say Gawker isn't a WP:Reliable Source. Noroton (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines, not policies, so technically they don't require anything. --Smashville^BONK! 15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, they require common sense if you want to make an occasional exception. I'm open to common-sense exceptions for the good of the 'pedia, but I haven't seen a good common-sense-exception argument here. Noroton (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that if you have one really in-depth source and dozens of trivial mentions from highly notable sources, a reasonable argument can be made that notability is established. And that's all WP:WEB is, really: a guideline to help figure out whether or not an article is notable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I used to argue just that, based on my reading of WP:N, but now when I look at WP:N, I find it doesn't give me room to say that. I think that guideline has been edited to leave that part out, but I can't find the edit, and WP:WEB doesn't have it either. While you can interpret the MSN/Nine source as one of "multiple" sources giving a significant amount of coverage (a consensus interpretation of something like that is just what a discussion like this is for), you can't interpret any of the other sources as offering a significant amount. Different interpretations of those sources amount to "jury nullification" -- simply refusing to acknowledge that they're insufficient is not good enough. There is certainly enough support here to make a common-sense argument that we should make an exception here, but you need the argument as well, and ultimately you need endorsement of that argument by the closing admin of the DRV that will inevitably follow this discussion. How likely is it that that admin will agree to flout the guideline for the good of Wikipedia and its readers, considering all the drama that an ED article will bring? Noroton (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Oh, WP:ORG allows for just that kind of exception you mention, Chunky Rice. That's where it is ("Primary criterion" section), but that guideline doesn't apply to Web sites. WP:WEB takes over. Noroton (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, the wiggle room is still there. WP:N basically says that if a subject satisfies the criteria laid out, it is presumed notable. But it doesn't say that a subject that fails to meet them is automatically not notable. You simply need to present a reasonable argument why, even though the subject doesn't meet the WP:N presumption of notability, it is notable. Here, that argument might be "We have one in depth source and many, many other sources with coverage that borders on trivial. Culmultaively, the amount of attention from third party sources is comparable to having two in depth articles." I haven't decided what I really think about this article's notability (it's borderline, for sure), but I think that there are reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of it. The fact that it's spelled out in WP:ORG just goes to show that it is a reasonable argument. Don't get trapped in the specific wording of the various notability policies - that's not what Wikipedia is about. It's much more important to follow the spirit, not the letter, of the policy/guideline. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                • You're right about the spirit and the letter, but looking closely at the letter doesn't prevent following the spirit, and sometimes it helps. The only problem with following the letter can be contradicting the spirit, and I don't think anyone can say that's going on here. I don't think the word "presumed" in WP:N is something like a "get-out-of-jail-free" card from Monopoly, but more like an acknowledgement that there are ways around the requirements -- ways that are referred to specifically on that page and its links to other guidelines. It's either that or WP:IAR, essentially. "Presumed" also refers to rejecting topics that even meet the notability guidelines for articles, in fact, the word has an entry in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to explain that. In practice, closing admins have a lot of leeway, but taking the WP:ORG argument for a WP:WEB subject is something that grief-averse closing admins tend not to do. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Here's the thing, though. The criteria listed in WP:N and other notability guidelines are not requirements. They are guidelines to help us to determine what is notable and what is not. It's not some sort of firm line where everything on one side is notable and everything on the other is not. For example, let's say that there was a book that was the top selling book in the U.S. for 4 months running, but we only had one in depth source about it. Now, being a best selling book is not listed as one of the criteria that indicates notablity. That doesn't mean that it doesn't indicate notability, though, just that it hasn't been specifically singled out as one. The criteria listed are not the only ways to show notability. I think that's clear in all of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The fact that the article would bring drama should have no bearing on the discussion. Trivial mentions plus one non-trivial source is a common sense reason to keep. We have kept articles on a lot less...a whole lot less. In fact, if pretty much any other article came to AfD with this much sourcing, it would probably be a snow keep. But because there's all kinds of wikidrama behind this one, it's being held to a higher standard. --Smashville^BONK! 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Believe what you will. Asserting it doesn't make it so. (Unless you're the closing admin of the DRV ...) If you want the closing admin to make an exception to the relevant guidelines, then it's got to be done for the good of Wikipedia, and in that situation, everything will have bearing on the ultimate decision. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Again, a guideline is just a guideline. There is nothing to be "enforced". Requiring that an arbitrary number of sources equals notability (when at least one has been provided) is simply asinine. --Smashville^BONK! 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per SHEFFIELDSTEEL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the ninemsn article. Although that's only one about the website, there are certainly a lot of other sources that discuss it somewhat, and I think that's quite sufficient. In any case, WP:N is a guideline, not policy -- WP:V is the real policy, and there is certainly enough reliable material here to maintain an article, even if it would be a short one. WP:NOT#PAPER, folks: if the topic can be written about reliably, and it is slightly less important than some would like, there just isn't a compelling case to delete it. Mangojuice^talk 15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the gawker one is also about the website. And about other sites, too, but its coverage of ED seems nontrivial to me — it's not just a passing mention in an article about some other subject, it's a whole paragraph specifically devoted to describing ED. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Multiple sources show a breadth, if not depth, of coverage that indicate but not conclusively demonstrate the subject is notable. Procedurally, I'm disturbed by an AfD on a protected article, preventing WP:HEY from working. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep - notable enough. HOWEVER, the article really needs to be kept focused on the website and it's notoriety NOT the actual content (which I find mostly stupid, and occasionally really awful). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable, controversial, needs its story told with a NPOV. If individual editors have had problems being harassed, libelled, etc., that's a job for the police; suppressing valid content is not the appropriate way of "fighting back". You wouldn't suppress an article on the Mob because they were after some editor, would you?Orbis 3 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• omgbbqdramaz -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comment - Can we do this when the page isn't fully protected, please? shoy 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards delete keep: Possibly probably deserves an article, what with the uproar it has caused in the online community, but I'm not sure if we should have an article about something that dedicates its time to slagging us off. I, personally, don't think ED should even exist, but it does. The article seems OK-ish, but does need to go...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is obviously all about wanting to delete a page because we don't like the people it's about. Well, guess what? We have Osama bin Laden. Look, anybody arguing that ED is not notable is making a nonsense argument, it has been mentioned in mainstream press. I think those among us who cannot laugh at our own ED pages (assuming we have them) have forgotten that life isn't always a serious endeavor. If somebody were to create a page for me saying something along the lines of "Node_ue is a faggot Wikipedo who is too obsessed with things he knows nothing about, such as Moldova or languages", I wouldn't be upset. That is because I understand the true intention of ED, which is lulz, not being mean and attacking people. It is intended for humor, even if it's a bit mean-spirited. If we can't laugh at ourselves, then we are already dead inside. --Node (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually I would have thought we wantt o delete it because they have info about people we do like (most of it false) not about people we do not like. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That isn't even remotely a reason for deletion. They say stuff about people we like? Chris Chelios said stuff about people I like. Can we delete him? --Smashville^BONK! 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As mentioned pretty much all over the place above, the fact that this page is fully protected is pretty much going to make any delete get overturned at DRV. So the page should either be dropped to a semi-protect or this AfD should be closed as out of process. --Smashville^BONK! 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• delete. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Rebuttal to the "fully-protected so we can't add sources" argument: Anyone who can find a source can add it right here, and that works just as well. There is no requirement to actually add it to the article mainspace. The closing admin is required to discount all delete votes based on notability if their notability objections are met. Noroton (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 2

• Keep - this article just passed DRV with a fairly strong consensus to recreate. AfDing it within a week of this occurring simply creates 'drahmaz!!!111'; some of the 'delete' arguments have a definite whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, ED attacks Wikipedia [and just about anything else it can find], but that doesn't mean that it should be denied an article. The article is well sourced, with mentions in mainstream media. Can we please come to at least a semblance of a conclusion on this for the sake of everyone's sanity! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 17:04, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that it wasn't a week after the DRV closed. It was less than a day. --Smashville^BONK! 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And it was closed without bias of bringing to AFD. DRV is not AFD, assuming they are the same is incorrect--Hu12 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't say they were. --Smashville^BONK! 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, and bringing it to AfD is close to forum shopping and a violation of WP:POINT. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Not even remotely close to WP:POINT nor is it in the same universe as forum shopping, read the closing DRV comments.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Why bring it to AfD within days of re-creation if not to have everyone chasing thier tails? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Again, as stated above, it was specifically mentioned in the DRV close that this could be taken to AfD. The only reason I made the "less than a day" comment above is that I've seen mentioned more than once that the page had been up for a week. Minor annoyance. --Smashville^BONK! 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Concur: I'm for keeping this, but the DRV explicitly did not rule out an AfD. There's nothing pointy going on here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I already added my !vote above, but I wanted to add another point. While I think we can reach a good decision based on the existence of multiple nontrivial sources (and I think both the ninemsn and gawker articles count as such), I think that sort of beancounting misses the point. There are two things we should be thinking about that our guidelines and policies are intended to address: is it possible to write a nontrivial and fully verifiable article about the subject, and is the subject one of sufficient prominence that it's worth our while devoting space to it? Clearly, it is possible to write a decent article — I haven't seen anyone here arguing, as often happens at other AfDs, that the article is full of unsourceable original research. And as for, is it a subject of sufficient prominence? Has any Wikipedian not heard of it? And the Alexa ranks are meaningful for answering this sort of question, too, I think. So I think counting sources and carefully assessing which are trivial and which are nontrivial amounts to wikilawyering when a step back and a look at the bigger picture makes the decision clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Grow?, the first revision of Encyclopedia Dramatica was 10 December 2004, and has been deleted several time including failing a recent Deletion review in january.--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' First Internet Backgammon Server has two book sources, which is two more than this article has. It's not a good example of your point. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "book references" are at most one sentence or one paragraph in a particular book about backgammon. Exactly the reasons mentioned here that the sources for ED are not vailid. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Above, you said ED had "much better coverage". Now you're implying the coverage is equivalent. Just be sure what you're arguing, rather than flinging dirt at people who disagree with you. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I was willing to change my mind somewhat, and the FIBS article's sourcing did improve through the AfD. But I still think the sourcing on that article, whose AfD ended with overwhelming consensus to keep, is far less than ED's on a subject that is far less noteworthy. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I should point out that most of the people !voting delete either are the subject of an article on ED or are affiliated with someone who does. This would be a serious WP:COI and these people should recuse themselves from the discussion. In the least these people's comments should be discounted. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Like your WP:COI edit changing the ED redirect to point to Encyclopedia Dramatica?. Perhaps you should recuse yourself. Do you you perceive your biases as neutral?.--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Uh... I don't get how that's a COI. He violated a guideline by having a consistent opinion on an editorial issue...? Gracenotes^T § 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I missed that the page was a disamb page and Encyclopedia Dramatica was already listed there. My mistake. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Gee, so if ED makes enough articles on editors, nobody gets to vote? That isn't what our WP:COI policy is about, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly a notable web site, per WP:WEB and cited sources. Klausness (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• You fuckers got me out of retirement for this vote. Keep just because we hate something doesnt mean we delete it. Else we'd not have Hitler or Dahmer articles (yes thats right I Godwinned this bitch). Trivial coverage in one source ok i'd buy that argument if that was the only source... but trivial coverage in 15 sources, and an in depth article or two from a few is more than sufficient bar to pass for notability purposes. Find me non trivial coverage of the president of Lesotho oh wait you cant do that either... Seriously way to ruin any potential historical use of this site in 50 years. This is the shit that made me leave.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Precisely. It would be viewed as preposterous to request an unsourced article on a country to be deleted but we have more stringent standards for topics that offend the ruling clique. That's what makes this place retarded. Oh, and there are those that do miss you though we understand why asking you to come back would be pointless. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care so stop e-mailing me about it asking me to contribute here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment. What a surprise, violations of WP:CANVASS on this AfD. Care to rat them out? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not canvassing. It's an expectation I'll wave the banner and fight the fight. Anything about Æ on Wikipedia becomes a war of double standards, hypocrisy and trolling from both sides. Anyone presenting a modicum of rationality is attacked so it's best not to participate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep. The subject meets notability and verifiability standards as well as the WP:WEB inclusion guidelines by extensive coverage through multiple and reliable third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There seem to be only three types of argument against this article; noteworthiness, a perceived lack of sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now, the first two would be worth debate if they were occurring on their own, but they are both only occurring in combination with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, the very strength of the opposition to having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the fact that an AfD is filled every time someone tries to add an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is in and of itself proof of the significance of Encyclopedia Dramatica. All deleting the article accomplishes is giving the folks at Encyclopedia Dramatica more ammunition to claim that we are biased against them, and that we are letting that bias subvert our values.—rhonan (talk)Rhonan (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, if only just. I do not find any of the arguments to delete to be based upon anything other than the fact that they don't like it (with, in many cases, very good reason.) This is an invalid AfD- articles should not be nominated while they are fully protected. As such, I support a speedy close. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• wait until ED is demanding money from you to remove libelous content (baseless accusations of pedophilia and worse) alongside your RESUME with your phone number and street address. You would be singing a different tune, had you gone through what I have in the last three years. Em otter (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Gawker as a source of a "significant" amount of coverage: Various editors have made this claim. Here's the entire three sentences. Somehow I don't think this is what WP:N means by a "significant" amount: The Wikipedia of obscure Internet memes, particularly those on the sites that follow. ED is run like Wikipedia, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about most Internet memes it covers. However net-savvy you are, ED is edgier, and it will perform 2 girls 1 cup on you to prove it. That's all she wrote. Now tell me with a straight face that it's a significant amount. Noroton (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just nuke it for God's sake. It's not worth the effort, and it's not worth allowing ArbCom to suddenly expand their remit over. Martinp23 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Utterly unworthy of an encyclopedic article. Completely non notable outside of the bounds of Wikipedia itself - nothing more than a few very passing mentions in newspapers and a single tiny article on an internet news site having a slow news day. In fact, the only reason it even got a mention there was almost certainly because of all the drama on Wikipedia over it. Delete it and stop giving them the free advertising. Will (aka Wimt) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So the source doesn't count because you deem it to be a slow news day? A 300 word article is not "tiny". It's a normal sized news article. But seriously...are we going to start word counting now? --Smashville^BONK! 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would contend both are completely relevant factors when assessing the notability of something. The idea that a small (and yes, 300 words is small) article being used as filler is equivalent to a large and well planned feature when considering something like notability is silly. WP:N mentions significant coverage, and assessing each article on its merits is essential to judge whether this is achieved. And in this instance, I contend it certainly isn't. Will (aka Wimt) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no requirement anywhere that a source has to be a 5,000 word feature article. A 300 word article is a standard article. "Non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources" doesn't mean "non-trivial coverage reliable secondary sources read by X number of people containing a minimum of X words". --Smashville^BONK! 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and if you will take my comment out of context and say I'm enforcing a word limit for sources, it will look stupid. It's also completely pointless. My point was that each source should be considered on its merits, and that not all articles are of equal merit by any stretch of the imagination. Various factors can be indicative in relation to that - and size and reasoning behind the article are two such factors. Will (aka Wimt) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't know what exactly was out of context. Your argument in a nutshell seems to be that the article is not feature length and you believe it was a slow news day. Neither of which have any validity on the article. 300 words is a standard news article. It is on a legitimate, reliable news site. Encylopedia Dramatica was the only thing covered in the article, which means it is beyond non-trivial. I agree that not all sources have equal merit...obviously, local sources don't bear as much weight as national, but the argument that a national source doesn't establish notability because the article is standard length as opposed to feature length? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem reasonable. --Smashville^BONK! 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, to keep it simple, do I believe that anything that gets a single article on ninemsn is necessarily notable? No. I agree the mention of it wasn't passing, but whether or not the article is trivial is up for debate. Quite apart from all this of course, there's the simple issue that WP:N specifically suggests multiple non trivial sources (for fairly obvious reasons - lots of completely non notable things have news articles about them every day of the week). For what it's worth, I've just done a passing survey of articles in my newspaper today, and 300 is definitely small, but as I said before, my point wasn't in relation to any kind of minimal size. Anyway, I have better ways to spend my time than to continue to argue this point when our opinions are clearly quite polarised on this issue, but safe to say, I still strongly hold my original opinion that it is non notable. Will (aka Wimt) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I guess we can chalk this one up to agreeing to disagree. --Smashville^BONK! 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Agreed on that :-) Will (aka Wimt) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm sorry, but since when has NPOV been thrown out of the window? WP:IHATEIT specifically states that articles shouldn't be deleted simply because it's been decided that nobody likes it. ED is notable, it's been featured in news articles, and it's got more than enough sources compared to many other articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound Uncivil here, but if we start censoring just because we don't like ED, then we're going to have to start censoring a lot of other things that editors do not like. Also see WP:CENSOR. --HALtalk 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Passing mentions do not make it notable, and it has a local illusion of notability only because we, especially our editors, are its primary target. That it is one of the most nauseating, despicable, and utterly loathsome sites ever to pollute the internet, should not affect our !votes, but it does baffle me that even though this stinking excrement has been flushed multiple times, there is still a movement to retrieve the turd from the septic tank, without considering that its notability is a local phenomenon only. Antandrus (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The ninemsn article is clearly not a "passing mention". --Smashville^BONK! 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • True, but it's only one source. WP:WEB and WP:N require multiple sources. Hut 8.5 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:WEB states nothing about how comprehensive these sources have to be. One fully devoted article and casual mention in several other non-trivial sources should be satisfactory. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Which, as any reader can see, it has. Multiple trivial mentions, a few more in-depth ones and a full feature is more than enough. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • (to Neapolitan Sixth) No, it does exclude trivial mentions. Hut 8.5 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I think you're confusing the use of the word "trivial". It refers to the prestige of the source used, not how they mention the subject. For example, someone's minor leauge blog would be trivial while the NY Times would be a non-trivial source. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • "Trivial" has more to do with the depth of coverage. The prestige of the author goes toward whether the source is reliable, a different dimension that we are to consider. The NY Time can still carry a story that is either very short (such as many of the business listings) or one where the topic is mentioned only tangentially. Such coverage would be trivial even though the paper and maybe even that particular story are not. Rossami (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, WP:WEB and WP:N are guidelines and therefore do not "require" anything. --Smashville^BONK! 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know why you people are so self-centered to think that criticizing Wikipedia is the primary function of ED. It isn't. It's main function is as a wiki for the chans. They just happen to be amused by the drama-centered debates like this one that occur here, so that gets covered as well. It is in no way a local phenomenon. Multiple trivial coverage plus two in-depth articles on the subject would lead to a snowball keep if this was any other subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I will note that if this is deleted, we can no doubt expect this fracas to start all over again at DRV. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment But if it survives, all the Keep editors will just roll over and play dead. Noroton (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• We're no strangers to love. You know the rules, and so do I. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The sheer volume of bile spewed about this article says a lot about its notability in itself. Yes, the sources are in some cases quite trivial but there are rather a lot of them, including at least one that's strongly notability-demonstrating. I really don't think Wikipedia's aims are fulfilled by deleting this, even though it is by its own admission a pretty stupid website. ~ mazca ^talk 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - judging by the sources currently available, while it's a long list it's a very shallow one. I don't feel the current selection of sources is enough to establish notability, and the large focus ED has on Wikipedia makes it seem too much like naval-gazing on our part. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Large focus? According to their own category page, the two specific-to-Wiki categories contain 402 pages. The 4chan category contains 518. DeviantART has 419. Furries has 508. Memes 563. There are 2192 pages in the People category, some of which may be about Wikipedia editors, but definitely not all of them. So your argument of how ED's "large focus" on Wikipedia equating to "navel-gazing" is ignorant and utterly wrong. Howa0082 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Category "Faggotry" has 560. --Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That category could use some expansion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • So this is a hobbyist website concerning the making of stick bundles? I confess that through my keep arguments, I've never been to the site...but I do like stick bundles...perhaps after work I shall take a gander. --Smashville^BONK! 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would've mentioned that one too, but I didn't want to offend any gays stick-bundlers politicians Torontonians reading this discussion. Howa0082 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, no. ED covers WAY more than just Wikipedia. Have a look at it before you start making such judgements. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think the debate has come about only because this is ED. If not for the whole drama surrounding ED, it would have been kept. Wouldnt want to colour my own WP understanding based on my POV of ED. Prashanthns (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (again). While there is slightly more coverage than the last time this came up, the coverage is trivial. Human interest stories on a slow news day. Not enough on which to base a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete worthless article on worthless website. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability and Web are only interpretations of WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, which this article demonstrates and comply with. I would like to comment also on the large number of WP:IDONTLIKEITS present (as well as the minor WP:POINT issue), and hope that the closing administrator takes these into account. --Izno (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. The current references are not enough to demonstrate notability; several are passing mentions or are from sources that fail WP:RS requirements. Horologium (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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, The Revenge

• Keep. If the site disappeared tomorrow I would care less, but I honestly believe the repetitive coverage this website has received rises well above WP:WEB standards, which aren't low by any means. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Simple cost-benefit analysis makes the answer obvious. This article will have very little benefit to our readers, but will cause a huge headache. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Indefinite protection might be a possibility, given the attention-attracting nature (and not always positive attention) of the subject. Gracenotes^T § 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The ninemsn article is one step toward satisfying WP:WEB. The other sources listed are questionable, as most of them only mention ED in passing. However, ED is a notorious website with wide recognition across the internet, and I'm sure at some point down the road it will receive more coverage in reliable sources. WP is not a crystal ball, so it might be better to wait for more sourcing before creating this article again. On the other side of the coin, I have to cry foul at nominating a fully-protected article for deletion. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A user above (86.31.102.215) requested a more comprehensive database search based on “reliable sources which can be found to demonstrate the notability of this topic.” I believe that is a fair and reasonable request.

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)

• • Sorry but there are more mentions that that, as evinced in the references ssection of the article itself... Viridae^Talk 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Sweet Jesus Keep. Notability and WEB are guidelines, not stuff set in stone. Please stop the insanity. Also, there is an inevitability argument. You know if this is deleted today, this article is going to be here eventually, so might as well be now. What difference does it make? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep for the lulz for the traffic the drama brings to wikipidia.org, making our internets rule all. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I've found plenty of articles on topics that I'd imagine 70+% of the human population wouldn't even care about, and most of them can be found via Random Article. If we have an article on Burford Bulldogs (whose only source leads to a 404 error), then why can't we have an article on ED? Honestly, this bad blood most wikipedos have towards ED is ridiculous. I spend a lot of time reading and editing BOTH ED and Wikipedia. After reading the articles on ED about Wikipedia's dark, disgusting, and rather shady depths, I became quite disillusioned and decided to avoid dealing with anything major on Wikipedia beyond simple spelling fixes and the like, but it's things like this AfD nomination that make me crawl out of hiding and wield my logichammer. In rebuttal to the lack of sources (the only valid delete argument I see here), I direct everyone to that Burford Bulldogs stub, which has only ONE source link which is broken. If ED goes, then so should that stub and others like it. Fucking ridiculous. InvaderJim42  (talk • contributions • contact) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, thankyou for your numerous useful contributions to Wikipedia. Black Kite 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Burford Bulldogs tagged accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • and deleted accordingly too. Viridae^Talk 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The arguments for deletion of this article as explained in the March DRV, which were ultimately deemed appropriate, went like so:

• 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)

• Keep not only for lulz but its cool to point sh*t to and keep it far from mainspace. Sick of lolcat reminding me that we can't link to external ED, so please keep it in mainspace. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec with Shii above, agreeing with every word - the only reason I'm posting is because I already typed all of this)

  Close call, this one. The amount of source material that seems to exist is hovering right at the (gray) border between notable and non-notable. Applying the notability criterion to the letter, we need multiple, non-trivial mentions from reliable sources. We've got multiple non-trivial sources, but only one is reliable. We've got multiple reliable sources, but only one is non-trivial. Of course, IAR says, "the letter of the rule is interesting and useful, but always consider: what's the best thing to do, to make the encyclopedia better?"

  I think Wikipedia is a little bit better with an ED article than without one, at the present time, and here's why: A Wikipedia article can be kept neutral and accurate, and can enable Internet users to make their own decisions about whether they want to visit ED. In other words, we can fulfill our mission to educate. If someone who would be truly offended by their content is wondering what ED is, I think it's good that they can look it up on Wikipedia, and make an informed decision that they do, or do not, want to go there. I think that's better than having them Google ED, go straight to it, and be presented with a featured article or picture about something they really didn't want to see.

  The reason to delete an article for non-notability would be that we can't obtain enough reliable information to maintain an encyclopedia article. I don't think that's true in this case; we have enough to maintain a healthy stub.

  In every previous discussion I've recommended we delete the article. This time I recommend keep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Based on the current form of the article, I'm seeing references to the non-trivial third-party sources that WP:WEB and WP:N demands. Once I saw The Observer, that was enough, never mind MSNBC, Global, the Chicago Tribune, etc. I could care less about the content of the site. 23skidoo (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject had no claim for notability. The site itself was encouraging vandals for Wikipedia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seriously, the nomination itself and the WP:AN post has flared up the WikiDrama a lot. The more WikiDrama we have, the more that editors from both Uncyclopedia and ED are going to make more mean, satrical jokes about us. Period. Probably editors at ED are partying write now because of this debate, and Uncyclopedia is probably too. Look at it this way, editors here are leaving Wikipedia right now because of this senseless WikiDrama, so please close this case ASAP.

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)

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

• Comment I don't care whether the article is kept or not, but for those that don't want an article because it would draw attention to the site, the drama over if it should be banned from Wikipedia has drawn more attention to it than when it had an article. ED got tons of press coverage and a lot more traffic and visitors after it was banned because due to human nature about things being banned. There was a psychologist who wrote a book about it and I read it, though I don't remember either the psychologist or the book except it might have been slightly related to NLP. If ED hadn't been banned here and everyone arguing about it which has gone on for years, the site would have been less known. William Ortiz (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Keep. I don't know where people got the idea that a supposedly reliable encyclopedia can delete articles because they don't like the subject. If this were anything else, there'd be practically no debate. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)