Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 16 May 2008

kind of stupid question

why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")

If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --Have a nice day. Running 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPAs

Would it be possible to indent the comments by IPs and new SPA accounts? its rather difficult to tell them apart from established editor comments at present. MBisanz ^talk 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with {{spa}}, if applicable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment moved

I moved a comment that had been placed at the very top of the afd page, down to the end where it should have been placed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikinfo precedent

I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:46, 16 May 2008 edit Dragon695 (talk \| contribs) 1,687 edits →‎The wikinfo precedent: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:25, 16 May 2008 edit undo Lawrence Cohen (talk \| contribs) 13,393 edits →‎The wikinfo precedent: reply Next edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --[[User:Dragon695\|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695\|talk]]) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)		I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --[[User:Dragon695\|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695\|talk]]) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
			:If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen\|Lawrence Cohen]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen\|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen\|e]]</font></span> 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)