Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8

8 May 2008

Wayne Nelson Corliss

Wayne Nelson Corliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was speedied WP:CSD#G10. It had a {{hangon}} with an explanation on talk (I added both). I think this is close enough to notable (meaning it may be) to warrant AfD. Elliskev 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, hmmm... G10 isn't really about notability. Page isn't in the cache, but if it was sourced, as you say on your and the admin's talk pages, I don't believe there's anything in WP:DEL to cover the speedy deletion of this. I'm going to assume it was written in a neutral tone and suggest a restore and list at AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, assuming the G10 was valid (I have no way to be sure). Why not rewrite a neutral version? That should solve the issue. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was very neutral and sourced (only two sources had made it in however - it was a stub). Is there any way to get an admin to pull it up so we can see? --Elliskev 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. G10 wasn't really relevant but A7 would have been. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In line with Stifle's comment above, circumventing G10 would lead me to consider A7. And BLP still concerns me, as the man has not actually been convicted of the crime(s) for which he is accused, and there was no balanced presentation; only that he was a suspect apprehended, and while it was reported clearly, it would undoubtedly inspire further conviction in the court of public opinion before the legal process is permitted to run its course. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs.) Regarding notability after a presumed conviction, I would consider an AFD to discuss the notability of a criminal convicted of a (disturbingly) non-notable crime, and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable number of times and/or a (disturbingly) non-notable level of severity. The google hits I got was 64 (one of them was this article), and most of these are press that repeat what other sources report, such as AP. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I think G10 was fine as a reason, but A7 will do it also. I don't see evidence at this time that this merits AFD consideration. GRBerry 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

High school alumni (United States)

Admin initially correctly closed the CFD as delete but after being pressured by two editors reversed himself. Closing admin has expressed deep regret over allowing himself to be pressured in this way. The original interpretation of the CFD was correct, the categories fail WP:V and are also non-defining of the people included, CFD is not a vote and the original deletion should be reinstated. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore - Consensus trumps policy.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - I wasn't going to chime in as closer on this one, but I take exception to the "consensus trumps policy" statement above. No, it doesn't. You can have unanimous support to keep an attack category, but at the end of the day it's gone. --Kbdank71 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment consensus does not trump policy, but it does interpret it. The attack policy for example is applied strictly because such application has very strong consensus every time.

• Keep all the categories in Category:People by high school in the United States. WP:V is a red-herring - there is no problem verifying which high school many people attended (eg George Bush) and if there is a problem with verification the article should be tagged and then removed from the category (as with any article in any category). Non-defining is a matter of opinion - Otto4711 believes that high school is not defining but dietary preference is crucial. In contrast the biographers of the United States Congress give the high school for BUSH, George Herbert Walker but omit his dietary preferences. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Way to put words in my mouth. I didn't say vegetarianism is "crucial;" I said it was defining. And for all of your bluster about red herrings you have yet to rebut my point in the CFD that these categories are nothing but Category:People who graduated high school and that people are neither notable for nor defined by graduating high school. It may very well be interesting that so-and-so graduated high school but it does not define who that person is as a person. Pick any person in any of these categories and list off the things that define them. Does "graduated high school" make the top ten? The top fifty? For the vast majority of them, no. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn "consensus" decision wtf? WP:V does trump the consensus at a CfD. It's supposed to be a fucking core policy. The interpretation at the CfD is too loose and makes WP:V almost totally irrelevant on discussion categories. This closing was faulty and should have been a "delete per being empty categories after taking out unverified articles" like the original decision stated. Delete all the categories and restore them only one by one once you have 4 or 5 articles that verify assistance to that high school. Once they are created they can then be brought again to CfD for being irrelevant categories and then the info be added to the school article instead, but that was not the argument used on this CfD closure and the discussion would be out of place on DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• RESTORE categories on grounds that the deleting admin erred: Failing WP:V applies to the articles themselves not the category. DO go back and remove all articles from categories where the references do not support the alumnus status. THEN delete all categories that remain empty after the usual few days. After all of this is done, if there are any sparsely-populated categories - particularly those with only 1 or 2 alumni - nominate them for deletion individually. I fully expect 80-99% of these categories will disappear by virtue of being empty or having only 1 entry in them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, isn't this just a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy? The closing admin states that out of 50 articles that he tested only one was properly sourced to be on the category. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, per Enric Naval. Neither verifiable nor remotely notable or useful categories. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the circumstances of this deletion I would recommend that for clarity, people would refrain from stating "endorse" or "overturn" on their own as it is unclear what exactly you wish to overturn or endorse without further clarification. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the categories (they are not currently deleted). Given the way articles are categorized, it is literally impossible for a category to be verifiable - there's no way to put source references in the category listing. However it is absolutely possible for the categorization of an individual article to be verifiable, and any category added to an article should be supported by a statement in the article and a source for that statement. As to the claim that of 50 articles only 1 was sourced, I can easily identify 50 that are sourced. Despite Kbdank71's regret, he did the right thing in reversing his own decision to delete. RossPatterson (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore. Admittedly those who favored retention in the CfD didn't give the WP:V point much attention, but I don't think it's compelling. In most cases the alumni categorizations could be easily verified with a quick Google search. One might argue that citing such trivial (that is, trivial to verify) information as a subject's high school is overkill. In any case, though, it's at most an issue with the articles and not the categories. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Before you instantly consider closing this as a disruptive request given that the last DRV was speedily closed, something happened overnight concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica's notability. Something big happened. Specifically, an article in a major Australian media outlet was published about ED. It is obviously a reliable source. It is clearly non-trivial coverage given that the article's primary subject is Enyclopedia Dramatica. Given the draft that already exists at User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica proposed by User:Shii in March 2008 was already at the stage where consensus was that if an article that was primarily about Encyclopedia Dramatica was to be published, notability would be clearly and firmly established per both WP:WEB and the general notability guideline on top of the existing sources we have on the site. Other than WP:IAR, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I know of that can be used to deny Encyclopedia Dramatica an article at this point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousUser12345 (talk • contribs)

• overturn/allow recreation This nomination was started by an SPA but it seems to have a valid point worth considering. For me at least the MSN article seems to push us clearly into the notable end of things. I suspect that some people will argue that this article focuses on Anonymous more than ED which may be a valid criticism (and it is fairly short). (I wish that these trolls would have the minimal social understanding to have a normal user like Shii or Running start this DRV...) JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close per WP:IAR - this is a perennial issue, and one that will not be solved by DRV alone.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Or you know, we could actually have a decent DRV discussion based on the sourcing and ignore the trolling. Which we've actually managed to before. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - there is no real reason for not having the artice. I have the history of this article (with maybe too much personal opinions about the matter) on my userpage, which was already linked here. ED has three sources that talk about it and 16 sources that mention it somehow (and there are maybe more). I think it's enough. --Have a nice day. Running 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I now read this page and I see that in last month some ED requests were speedily closed with messages like "no new informations" - well, now there actually are new informations - the new msn article. While I think ED was worth the article before it, now it's even more. I think now it's not so much about having or not having the sources, it's more about general principles. I am against this "Oh my, we don't want all these bad trolls and anonymous hackers on our wikipedia!", - WP should not be like that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith --Have a nice day. Running 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist enough for a relisting, though I'm not sure how the AfD will turn out--but finding that out is what AFD is for. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• annother comment - in one of these closed deletion reviews, I read something like "show us some good draft". Somebody with better english than me can try edit the draft here - User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica/Draft - it's just copied version from march or something, written by Shii, without the new sources. --Have a nice day. Running 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - It's going to be an uphill battle to keep the ED article from becoming a mini-ED itself. Nevertheless, there seem to be good sources, and a large number of people are interested. As for notability, it's currently ranked 2,099 on Alexa, which is significantly higher than Uncyclopedia (Really, check it out). I realise the site is a vicious parody of Wikipedia, but this shouldn't prevent us from covering it. In fact, it should make us more inclined to cover it. --Estemi (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no opinion on the reasoning for the deletion review. That said, the new source seems to be enough to warrent a new AfD. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist Stupid nonsense, but that meets my standard for this sort of thing on the notability scale. It's far more than most websites we have articles on achieve. The article if it's remade should be permanently semi-protected to keep trolls at bay. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist and make sure to point to a good draft finally a source that unambiguously covers ED directly and not its actions. And it's on the technology section too. I would say "overturn" but an article with such a contentious article should go throught the long path because skiping any step would cause heavy amounts of WP:WIKIDRAMA and flood ANI with cries of undue procedures. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist While I think this is a bit early to have another deletion debate about this article, I outlined some sound reasons for keeping it at User:Shii/ED and I think this new source should prove quite helpful to maintaining a good article. Shii (tock) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. The deletion was for notability and sourcing concerns and this seems to have been met. I see no reason we have to go through an AfD; DRV is the proper venue for this sort of thing. Mangojuice^talk 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. The various objects to an ED article reek of POV corruption. Wikipedia's mission necessitates an article on this notable (yet still disgusting) wiki. --Truthseeq (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - per the additon of new sources. I was just about to start a DRV myself. Also see my version of the draft at User:Urban Rose/ED.--Urban Rose 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. The arguments against always look like a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist at AFD, but keep the article permanently full-protected if it is kept - even as Wikipedia's anti-ED poster child, I think the source just pushes it into notability. Just. The problems with an ED article now are troll attacks - the former can really only be dealt with by protecting, as any Grawp-basher knows - trolls from the 4chan family of websites are the most persistent. Do note, that even if the article is kept, the site can not be linked to directly - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO explicitly disallows any links to the site, and the remedy (and enforcement) was upheld two months ago (annoyingly, using my ED page as a reason for denying links). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• I knew this day would come Relist per my prophetic remarks here, barely hours ago. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation On the last extended DRV discussion I thought there was a good claim for notability. This new article solidifies it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Close, stop the nonsense. Enough already. How many times have we been through this? Durova^Charge! 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Apparently you seem to be confused. New sources have turned up that establish ED's notability. There is no policy which forbid that there be an article on ED and consensus can change.--Urban Rose 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close, third or fourth nomination inside a week. Disruptive. It has been very clearly established that this article is not wanted on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I (and I'm sure that many other Wikipedians) don't particularly "want" to have to look at pictures of male genitalia on the article penis. That doesn't mean that the images there deserve to be censored. And also, you completely ignore the fact that this nomination differs from the other three in that new sources have recently been found. You simply fail to give a valid argument against the recreation of this article.--Urban Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like Wikipedia:WEDONTNEEDIT. In previous attempts, it has been said many times, that there are not many sources for possible ED article. Altough judging from other articles about other sites, previous news coverage should be sufficient, but there is this new, reliable msn source, which gives ED a little bit more notability. Of course, the article will have to be protected from vandals, just like 4chan article. --Have a nice day. Running 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good God no No ta. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - And your reason being?--Urban Rose 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation Last time this came up at deletion review I did not think notability was quite established, with the new article am convinced that it has been and do not see any arguments that it has not been. Anyone can list it at AFD once it has been recreated of course but am convinced it will be kept now. The article should be premamently semi protected at least as a rather special case where it is needed. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Keeping them out because they're odious is contrary to our principles of no censorship, fails to provide neutral coverage of that segment of the web, and passes up the chance to neutrally describe their odiousness. We shouldn't let their misbehavior drag us down towards their level. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist as it has become more notable. If we can have a bazillion articles about paedophilia, really weird sex acts, zoophilia, graphic photos of various STDs, etc, etc, I'm sure we can bear the grossness of having an article about ED. -- Naerii 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation notability has been established with the significant MSN source. Of course, relist at AfD if you disagree. EJF (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Encyclopedia Dramatica is clearly relevant enough for an article to be created, not having one seems irresponsible. The content of the site shouldn't affect whether or not there is an article on it, and certainly hasn't stopped articles being created on similar sites.--Advwar (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Advwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• comment I still don't think this source is very good. It is only one source about the subject, it is quite short, and is it not a web source rather than a paper? It's definitely not the most well known of papers. We often delete articles based on their having only one source. The other sources are not primarily about ED, and all only mention them for a few sentences. It has pretty much the same number of sources than Wikipedia review but not with the same quality or depth, so if we remake it, we technically should have the WR article as well, not that I really think we are obliged to have either. In the case of ED, t's free advertising for what's effectively an attack site.Merkin's mum 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and yes we know ED users want to validate their tawdry website by having a Wikipedia article, and nothing grieves them more than the implication that their little website is of anything less than surpassing importance but tough. It's just another site full of juvenilia and acutely unfunny "humor", there are a million of them. Oh, and I just visited the shithole to find out of Urban Rose has more edits htere than here, but their popups crashed Firefox. So: not only is it a cesspit of boring sophomoric nonsense, it's an ad'-riddled one at that. On the plus side, Rose does have fewer edits there than here (remarkable given her few edits here), but I did rapidly find out that she is active in the discussions about Grawp, who appears to originate at ED (I guess everybody else already knew this and I am just slow catching on). So another reason for not having an article: they are co-ordinating vandalims of Wikipedia as "punishment" for our daring to say how insignificant they are. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything to say about the arguments presented here or do you just want to make ad hominem attacks? Shii (tock) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your point - you are trying to say, that WP shouldn't have ED article, because it's attack site and it's full of vulgarities? Well, this can be easily described in the article. If you are implying that all users, that want ED recreated (I shouldn't say recreated, because ED article never really existed) are trolls or something, you are insulting me a little. --Have a nice day. Running 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I understand where you are coming from, but NPOV more or less says we shouldn't let our personal views figure into deletions. The fact that ED is composed almost exclusively of a bunch of complete shitheads who probably get laid even less often than I do and will go shoot themselves in a few years when they realize they haven't contributed anything to humanity at all shouldn't factor into our decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think anywhere on ED said Grawp originated at ED. There are some imitators of him operating now. Yes ED is effectively an attack site but that's not the main substance of Guy's argument or mine, which is its lack of sources discussing it in depth- one at the most, and not in a paper, saying how naughty it is. An aside- I think if some people had a very nasty article about them on ED, not just an attractive pic of them, and some of their own words like Urban Rose has, they would understand the views of some who are upset about their articles there a little more. I'm not so upset about mine nowadays but someone (not a regular at ED) wrote one where the title was my full real-world name, which personally I have never posted online. Even ED were sound enough to change it, as it's against their policies. Merkin's mum 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. When the draft at User:Shii/ED (see version [1]) was brought to Deletion Review on March 6th, I thought it was sufficiently well-sourced and sufficiently established notability that, if it were any website without ED's history of conflict with Wikipedia, there would be no dispute about its inclusion. This feature article from ninemsn (which is a collaboration between Microsoft and PBL, one of Australia's largest companies, and according to Alexa is the highest trafficked news website in Australia[2]) clearly pushes the notability level even higher. --Stormie (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - perhaps someone can figure out what exactly ED's claim to fame is. If it is to lampoon/attack WP (which is what the msn article is primarily about), then a redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia should suffice. If ED is a shock site, then it belongs in the same group (and is just as worthy of coverage) as goatse. At any rate, I don't think attacking WP is sufficient reason to not have an article/redirect. But then again, I have never been personally attacked by their sophomoric army of twits; my opinion might be different if it were otherwise. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist End the drama. Just relist this for crying out loud! It is more vigourously attacked than most websites, and now that we have a good source, I don't see why this should continue. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist per the new source. And let the chips fall where they may. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation and relist at AfD is anyone feels necessary (which they will, but I don't think it's the job of DRV to tell them to). Sourcing looks nearly excessive from where I stand, and at the very least the new source pushes it close enough to the criteria at WP:N that the community needs to decide on it. It also looks like this is nearly snowballing to allow it, since no one has managed to bring up a reason not to yet except things like "dear god no" and "disruptive", the latter of which is wrong. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, "relist" is one of the votes at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review. Not sure if the closing admin is supposed to relist it himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin doesn't have to relist it... but he can relist, or leave it up to editor discrition. If the admin relists, in my opinion it helps if the admin actually thinks the article should be deleted... a procedural no-vote AFD nomination can be confusing and counterproductive. --Rividian (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation / Relist Better evidence of sourcing than a lot of articles keep around nowadays... not sure it meets a careful application of WP:N but that's for an AFD to decide. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist due to the new source that has just become available George The Dragon (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist the article on ED. It's a huge compendium of Internet culture and Internet history. We have good sources.--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. One article now? That is hardly non-trivial. ED is not the subject of ongoing, repeated coverage in multiple major media outlets. One article does not establish importance. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is one article in addition to the pre-existing coverage as you can see if you look at the draft of the article or if you read the nominator's comment or if you read many of the comments above. And even if you were correct that hardly would justify a "speedy close". JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that to speedy-close this when an overwhelming response has so far been in the direction of relisting would be a blatant disregard of consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. ninemsn is a reliable source, and there have been others. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. Let's end the drama and show that we're not that biased. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation ED should of course be treated like any other article on any other website - if it makes the cut with the sources then there is no reason not to include it. If it doesn't then we shouldn't have it. This one seems to have made the cut. No bias, no hatred, no hysteria just simple a simple policy based approach. Viridae^Talk 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The case is borderline, as there is now a slight claim to marginal notability; in a borderline case, a factor such as the fact that the site features vicious and repugnant attacks against Wikipedia and Wikipedians should be considered. Everyking (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, can you identify a policy to support that opinion? As I see it, not covering a subject that you hate or that has negatively affected you is POV, and not allowed by Wikipedia. I agree with your intention, but I don't think this is a valid argument for deletion by any means. --Estemi (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Policy and guidelines are primarily described but what the community does. I can understand the logic behind Everyking's point and he doesn't necessarily need a policy behind (although I agree with you that this is allowing a POV to infect our notability criteria and thus strongly disagree with Everyking). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, the evidence fulfills the requirements for the article to exist. Nothing more, nothing less. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The new source demonstrates that the subject is notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, notable. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break for sanity

• Relist at AfD - The new source found may tip the balance in favour of keeping. Yes, it attacks Wikipedia, but so have many mainstream newspapers, and we don't not have an article on those saying 'OMG!! THEYRE CRITICIZING TEH WIKIPEDIAZZZ!!!!111' Overall, it seems that having the ED article deleted, and constantly a topic of discussion [2/3 DRVs in as many weeks?!] is creating more drama than it was intending to prevent. No promise that I'll !vote 'keep' in any AfD though! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:38, May 9, 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore, possibly list at AfD. There's more than enough to warrant keeping the subject. Personal biases seem to be fairly major in keeping this deleted, considering the amount of coverage and mentions available. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment An article on this subject has been moved into article space: Encyclopaedia dramatica. --MHGW (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest we move that back until the DRV is closed. Process minimizes drama and conflict. (Also that should as I understand it be at Encyclopaedia Dramatica. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Have to agree here. I support an article, but if any DRV's should be run by the book, this one should.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's back in place at User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica/Draft. --MHGW (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment: just to keep things on the up and up, I've listed Encyclopaedia dramatica for speedy deletion under R2 (redir from main to user space). No comment on this DRV though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The namespace that the article should be recreated under is Encyclopædia Dramatica. Also, I will mention again that I have a version of the draft at User:Urban Rose/ED which I think is more in line with the sources than Shii's. But if someone wants to use a different version of the draft, I'm okay with that.--Urban Rose 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, my version of the draft has been redirected so it seems that there is one particular draft that consensus is currently in favor of.--Urban Rose 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The draft listed by MHGW shows that a fairly decent article can indeed be written about ED. I believe the page should be undeleted and this draft moved to it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. If articles should be deleted based on how "vile" their subject is, I expect to see Ku Klux Klan deleted before this. -Amarkov moo! 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fairness, the existence of an article on the KKK isn't as likely lead to long-term active disruption of the project. And the notabiilty level of the KKK is very different. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Though whether an article's existence leads to disruption of the project is not a valid consideration for it's deletion. If it was, then articles that have to be permanently semi-protected just to deal with vandalism like George W. Bush should be be deleted as well.--Urban Rose 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I don't think that considering notability level past the point of inclusion makes sense. We have non-notable for subjects which can't sustain an article, and notable for things which can. It makes some sense to introduce a "semi-notable" category for things in the middle, but it's not clear how to classify things as more notable than clearly notable. -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Per user:Merkinsmum ED seems to have a policy against outing people who haven't already made they're personal information public so I don't see the concern with having this article. Notability should be determined in the AFD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation I have to admit it is notable, even though they have banned me twice for "being a faggot" and seem to love raping each other in the ass. :-P Electricbassguy (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)