Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:13, 19 July 2008

Encyclopedia Dramatica

This is a completely non-notable website. It fails WP:N (more specifically WP:WEB) and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Alexfusco⁵ 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails per fails Notability (web) in Criteria section Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Of course it meets WP:N, alexa says it's notable (3,000th), and the article isn't POV. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-19-2008 • 02:53:05

If the article isn't POV then why does it state only positive things about ED, and makes no mention of criticism and it doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lacks notable source coverage. I mean I see some news coverage, but it needs far much more notable references than it has, at least ten times the current number of refs. William Ortiz (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, ED is in 2,459, according to Alexa. XD Seriously, I believe this AfD was done in bad faith, and is an excuse for the nominator to say I don't like it. As for the lack of a neutral point of view, I recommend fixing the problem. Hamako 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the website has a traffic rank of 2,459, that doesn't make it notable. Alexfusco⁵ 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable website. It has a tendency to go against wikipedia's grain despite using the same software, but that is not a reason for us to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For the lulz and for the mudkipz. Also for Longcat, who is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Haven't we gone through this already? There are a few issues with the prose, but sources such as this have me convinced that the site meets WP:WEB. Also, the involvement with Jason Fortuny is a notable part of the site's history, as is the involvement with Anonymous and Project Chanology. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part, though at the same time a little surprised that this showed up for AfD again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been through this before. How does this fail WP:N? At all? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *<s>'''Strong keep''' For the lulz and for the mudkipz. Also for Longcat, who is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong. [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green">Ten&nbsp;Pound&nbsp;Hammer</span>]] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>([[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Chirps]]•[[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Clams]]•[[Chowder (TV series)|Chowder]])</sup> 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)</s>
 *'''Strong keep''' Haven't we gone through this already? There are a few issues with the prose, but sources such as [http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 this] have me convinced that the site meets [[WP:WEB]]. Also, the involvement with [[Jason Fortuny]] is a notable part of the site's history, as is the involvement with Anonymous and Project Chanology. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part, though at the same time a little surprised that this showed up for AfD ''again''. [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green">Ten&nbsp;Pound&nbsp;Hammer</span>]] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>([[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Chirps]]•[[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Clams]]•[[Chowder (TV series)|Chowder]])</sup> 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' We've been through this before.  How does this fail WP:N?  At all? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)