Talk:Oh No They Didn't

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Untitled[edit]

You need to keep this merged with Live Journal for the time being.

I am a member of ONTD and I fully reccommend this page for deletion. The community is not yet well known enough to feature on wikipedia and will attract a storm of negative edits as seen when the community was made aware of the entry. In addition they are using the page to personally attack myself and others - lots of policing work for such a small entry. Please discuss this with wiki mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiceSuperstar (talk • contribs)

Not well known enough? We've been mentioned in Rolling Stone and we were ones of the first to report Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnant, we frequently get exclusives (ex, Peengate, the Rich Cronin email, etc) we break Livejournal on a regular basis. I don't understand what your issues here are. Once a community as big as ONTD is made away of the entry, of course they're going to go for their 2 seconds of fame and vandalise it. I think you're making this into way more of a big deal than it needs to be. Morhange (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am a member of ONTD and see nothing wrong with having a small, concise article about it on Wikipedia. Not only that, but I find that the constant edits and changes to the page make it pretty clear that the community/site are well known enough to have the aforementioned small article. I do not feel that merging it with the article on Live Journal will be very helpful, we're talking about a community with 90,000 members, and that is not counting the numerous 'lurkers' who read it and are not members. It has contributed to society enough to be mentioned in publications such as US Weekly, O, and Rolling Stone. Quite simply, it deserves at least its own mention. Perhaps it should just be monitored for this so called 'storm of negative edits', but I don't see anything different from common Wikipedia vandalism, and the mistakes are corrected and insults edited out rather quickly. Lumaria (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see members at ONTD are quick to anger and this page will be vandalised (as mentioned above) as soon as the lock is taken off. There was not only defamatory information posted here but also the threat to post personal images and videos - wikimods have been emailed.

I'm not angry? I just don't understand what your issue is with this article's existence when it is clearly notable. Who was threatening to post personal pictures or videos? It's not the article's fault that it was vandalised by someone who may or may not have had malicious intent, and that issue should be taken up with the person who made the threats, not with the article itself. By the time this article is unprotected, I'm pretty sure ONTD will have semi-forgotten about the article and the vandalism will be sporadic. Just a prediction. Morhange (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the complaint about third party sources, because Rollingstone.com gives a third party source that proves the point that the article is making about ONTD's notoriety. The page should not be merged with LiveJournal's page, as the site is more than just another LiveJournal account. MarMar627 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken certain tags off. Although notability and sources may remain an issue, there are sufficient third-party, reliable sources in this article, including various newspapers and magazines. It may be a bit self-referential, but for facts like the number of commenters and the limit breaking, it may need to be (although I added a source for the latter). And the potential for vandalism isn't a good-enough reason to not have an article on Wikipedia. And so far, it doesn't look that bad.... SKS (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What steps would have to be taken to establish notability and verify the sources?
  I also disagree slightly with the removal of the source of the Jamie-Lynn Spears paragraph. While the source was a simple Blogspot blog, it was the forerunner of http://pinkisthenewblog.com, an entertainment blog run by Trent Vanegas. --Cine (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally speaking, blogs aren't sources. Although I know that ONTD is itself a blog, other blogs don't establish notability. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and verifiability. SKS (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. ONTD is relevant to today's pop culture. SEE:

Rachyque (talk) 03:51,18 June 2009 (PST)

Other blogs cannot be used as sources, as I said before, but some of these are relevant and will be added as such. SKS (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Oh No They Didn't. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]