Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Encyclopaedia Dramatica

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

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

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

I do not think we should abandon this AfD. I will take up the nomination. Delete as a non-notable website. Ifnord 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind again. I take back my withdrawal and am preparing to delete this as a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NOR unless a strong argument can be given against it. Ashibaka tock 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't you go to every AFD and write "abstain" as your vote. Lack of voter turnout is the reason for the whitehouse's problems. Oh and why should encyclopedia dramatica go? www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Bastardman Here is the most frequent contributor. He uses the name Bastardman Hardvice 06:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason I posted anything here is because the article is on my watchlist. I feel it is my duty to comment whenever an article on my watchlist is AfD'd. I was originally going to vote keep, but when I saw the nominator's reasons and ran my own Google search, I was not strongly swayed enough to vote delete, but did not wish to vote keep either. I'm not sure what your comments about voter turnout and Bastardman have to do with my vote. Hermione1980 00:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website. Any WP:RS issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of previous AfDs -- ED is soooo oldmeme. Catamorphism 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Raul654 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's as notable as any other website featured on Wikipedia. --Aemilia 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website. If it's kept, the article should be reduced to a much shorter article, like "encyclopedia dramatica contains non-serious articles, which on very rare occasion are funny." April Furs Day should be left in though. I wonder if 4chan will do it this year like last. A more significant reason for is moving is that the domain is encyclopedia not encyclopaedia, and there is no "ae" key on keyboards, so it needs to be renamed at least. DyslexicEditor 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you can back up that accusation sometime? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website." Well you can say what you want, but we (the ED admins) have explicitly told our users, and other admins for that matter, not to troll the article or stack votes pertaining to AfDs etc. Take that as you will. -Drunkenlazybastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said a lot and I don't know which you refer to. I first said that many of the keep votes and edits on the article promoting the site are from ED admins and frequent contributors--you are one badlydrawnjeff (admin and frequent contributor to ED) so you proved that. Maybe you're referring to the fact that your site is rarely funny, well that's more of an opinion, not accusation. April Furs day? Well... hmm.. DyslexicEditor 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's see, I don't use "tons of names to alter the article," nor do I really go around promoting the website. The rest is a bunch of POV stuff that would never fly in an article either, but you're laying out some fairly dubious charges. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The issue of using "tons of names to alter the article" was raised the better part of a year ago (see talkpage) in connection with the repeated deletion of info from the article as to who owns ED - this question is nothing new here. --carlb 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hi everybody. I am Hardvice, an admin on encyclopedia dramatica and even I think it is unnotable enough that it does not belong on wikipedia. Hardvice 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a troll, yay for trolls, do they get to vote? SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so am I talking about the article. Using the website itself as a primary source about the website isn't a verifiability problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most of the facts cited in the article are self-evident from a cursory examation of the wiki and not in need of sources. --Weevlos 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I don't really think the "no reliable third-party sources" argument is a good one, over half of our articles don't have these kind of sources. I don't care that much for the actual article, but I think it's a good way to show what kind of idiots these guys actually are. :) --Conti|✉ 16:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non-notability claims are false, 18400 Google hits and a 32000 Alexa Ranking is a lot more than your average Wikipedia-featuring website has. While we're at that, let's make a bot randomly mark articles under Category:Websites for deletion. For example, Uncyclopedia and Kamelopedia, the first two website links that I found aren't more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. I strongly object deleting this article, personal fights and grudges have no place in a encyclopedia. Some Wikipedians strongly dislike Encyclopedia Dramatica because they had their own personal fights with Encyclopedia Dramatica editors in the past (such as User:nathanrdotcom). Well, Wikipedia isn't your personal website. We're striving to build a online encyclopedia will all sorts of content, not just content that we particularly like. (I thought censorship was considered harmful here?) Just because you dislike something, it doesn't make it non-notable. (See GNAA, for example.) This is a online encyclopedia, not an elementary school. You can't make things go away just by deleting their articles on Wikipedia. Go pick your fights elsewhere. ~ Mpontes 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


      • Comment Are you kidding? Uncyclopedia is not more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica? Here, I'll use your own sources. Uncyclopedia has 499,000 Google hits even after being "banned" and a 8,201 rank on Alexa. I think you'll notice that 499,000 is more than 18400, and that 8,201 is a higher rank than 32,000. So in terms of just pure stats, Uncyclopedia is literally about 4 times more notable than ED. Also you have to take into consideration all the extremely notable newspapers Uncyclopedia has been featured in. The source? You may have heard of it, it's called Wikipedia. Unfortunately, obscenity standards prevent newspapers from featuring Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Savethemooses 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, under your search criteria Uncyclopedia still recieves four times more hits. My search "Uncyclopedia -baseball -cricket -trivia -site:wikipedia.org -site:uncyclopedia.org" still comes up with 450,000 results. ED just pales in comparasion. It's a trashy non-notable detriment to the internet and discredit to our entire generation. Uncyclopedia has been featured in The New York Times, the Boston Herald, and the London Guardian among others. Believe me, I've had four of my own articles from Uncyclopedia cited in some of these newspapers. The best ED can come up with is a linkfilter quote from a year-and-a-half ago. It would be to Wikipedia's benefit to scourge it of any evidence of its existence. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even better, if you want to see how notable each is among the people, Uncyclopedia has 5,069 hits on Google Blog Search compared with 284 with ED, which is devestatingly ironic considering ED deals almost exclusively with "drama" on blogs. Adding the restiction -livejournal.com brings ED's total down to 117, meaning over half of all references on the blogs searched come from the site ED originated from. --Savethemooses 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't cite Wikipedia as a media source. I mentioned Wikipedia as the one location where many of the media sources Uncyc has been cited in is compiled. I can give you links to those articles. The fact of the matter is that Uncyclopedia is extremely more notable than ED. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you (and the ED crew) go spreading even more misinformation about me, I'll thank you to remember one thing. I went on my 'own personal fight' because misinformation was being used about me in the LJ Drama article (and kept getting reverted back, and absolutely no attempt was made to verify the info with me which made it a violation of WP:NOR). Think about that next time you make accusations about what I supposedly did that aren't true. I remind you of WP:NPA. (Do not damage the reputation of other Wikipedians should be a policy as well). Anyways, don't use me in your little examples unless you can get your facts straight. — natha(?)nrdotcom (T • C • W) 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I merely clicked the link on your webpage and noticed that you have a nice message directed to visitors from Encyclopedia Dramatica on your main page. It wasn't a personal attack, I was merely stating you have a grudge against Encyclopedia Dramatica -- it isn't a secret either, because you mention it on the main page of your site. I wasn't saying you were wrong or right; I don't know the backstory and I obviously wouldn't have any facts to back it up. Just stating that you do dislike them a lot, which I think that is true. Linking people to WP:NPA when they are only stating obvious facts is also a bit of an ad hominem, isn't it? (Also, I don't think they care about WP:NOR or any of our other policies, considering their wiki isn't Wikipedia. But that's just me.) ~ Mpontes 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woah, who are you lashing out at?! Ashibaka tock 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attack anyone. I've just grown very tired of seeing people frivolously marking articles about things that they dislike for deletion. It's just a waste of everyone's time. ~ Mpontes 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some things do not have published reliable third-party sources, yet are still of interest and sufficient notability for listing. ED is one of them. I don't particularly like the site, but it should have an article. GreenReaper 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles there really really really are anti-furry. I thought you'd at the very least want to merge it with another article. Maybe unfunny ? DyslexicEditor 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of that. Disagreeing with a website's topic is not grounds for removing articles about it, and certainly not "merging" it with a redirect that you made half a year ago. The website is the item of interest, not the word they coined. GreenReaper 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTREME KEEP. Bad faith nomination. Author is self-admittedly abusing the same policy that got The Game (game) deleted; see Talk:The Game (game) for detail. This is therefore a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Kinitawowi 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Furthermore, I nominated a website for deletion based on this same policy, and the consensus seems to be that it's notable even without any secondary sources. Maybe we should send this to DRV based on that. Ashibaka tock 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)" Uh... what's the problem? Ashibaka tock 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Site doesn't seem incredibly active, but more active than some foundation projects. Also, I've heard of it twice from LJer friends. And article is too big to merge into LJ's article. JeffBurdges 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is questionable (this is a recreate of a page twice deleted, kept the third time). This is a rather small website and rather limited in scope and activity. This article appears to be being used as a sandbox, a soapbox or an advertisement for a website; info the owners of that site don't want included has been repeatedly deleted via various means including sockpuppetry and DMCA misuse. Unless this can be dramatically cleaned up and merged somewhere else (such as a list of wikis on similar/related topics), this smacks more of "I want to advertise my website on the Wikipædia" than of actual useful encyclopædic content. I question whether we need an entire article about this one individual wiki. --carlb 17:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has only three namespace edits before this vote.
User has only one mainspace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than ten namespace edits before this vote.SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has only one non-reverted namespace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this users previous edits are to one article, and they were all reverted. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in article history to indicate that contribs from this user (who has been here since January) have been a target for reversion. --carlb 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the wikis in the list of wikis do not have their own article. The website here is not notable enough. Its article is also a source for trolls (one admin even called another a troll in this vote article and they're both ED admins!!). The article is just a POV push by the site's editors to promote the site. Wikipedia is not an advertisement board. Jotunheim 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than ten name space edits before this vote, and most of those are from a revert war. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has been here since January 1 and appears to be making valid contributions. Please do not bite the newcomers --carlb 16:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per nominator. Also as user:Keitei point out above, Wikipedia is not a lot of things. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make a comment about this stuff in general. I should say that there are millions, maybe even TEN millions, of sites out there, and just because a site has an Alexa rank of 50000, or even 200000, doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Many of the sites with <10000 Alexa ranks are mostly sites for corporations such as ESPN.com, adultswim.com, and things that have notability outside the web. I know what the Wikipedia guidline is (and, for the record, it is NOT policy), and I must say it's pretty flawed. Something can be very popular and referenced and still have low Alexa ranks. Starmen.net and SMBHQ, for example, have Alexa ranks of 200,000 approximately, and they're still some of the most popular sites on the web. Both sites have been referenced in MAJOR PUBLICATIONS, yet all people care about around here are numbers and statistics. And people say things like "delete: non-notable" without providing any evidence. Usually those who say it is notable provide evidence to back it up. A site does not have to fall under certain statistics to be notable.
  • Keep per above reasons. notable, covered in various 'real media'. Cleanup the article if necessary, however a badly written article is hardly a reason for deletion. Also this site has a much more favorable alexa traffic ranking than yellowikis, a spam haven project using the same mediawiki software, and that article seems to have been kept (voted without logging in before, fixing this now) --timecop 07:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica&oldid=1137828131"