Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:49, 19 July 2006 view sourceWeevlos (talk | contribs)36 editsm removing my duplicate vote← Previous edit Revision as of 15:52, 19 July 2006 view source Malber (talk | contribs)6,520 edits →[]: for the lulzNext edit →
Line 193: Line 193:
*'''Delete''' does not assert notability per ]. '']'' 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' does not assert notability per ]. '']'' 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. ] 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete''' Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. ] 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. -- ] (] • ]) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom and for the lulz. -- ] (] • ]) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ] & ]. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are '''no''' ] given that show how this site meets ] guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for ] purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a ]. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, ] problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Misplaced Pages discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--] 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ] & ]. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are '''no''' ] given that show how this site meets ] guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for ] purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a ]. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, ] problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Misplaced Pages discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--] 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Newsvine is a bloglike publishing service - anyone can start and write anything in their own column. The ED reference is by shaolintiger, who bills himself as "L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver." This is not a ], though the ED partisans are edit-warring for it's inclusion. ] - ] 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment''' Newsvine is a bloglike publishing service - anyone can start and write anything in their own column. The ED reference is by shaolintiger, who bills himself as "L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver." This is not a ], though the ED partisans are edit-warring for it's inclusion. ] - ] 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:52, 19 July 2006

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Misplaced Pages article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. (→Netscott) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Misplaced Pages is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.--MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Misplaced Pages and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.    22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As we should. This is not an attack article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.--MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Please provide a diff link proving the ED Misplaced Pages article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:

          • I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

          • I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Misplaced Pages completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.    22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". (→Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia--Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Misplaced Pages... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? (→Netscott) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Rootology.--Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Misplaced Pages Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.--Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep-The website is notable.
  • Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. --Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Misplaced Pages admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Misplaced Pages policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Karwynn. --Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Misplaced Pages must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) (→Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. (→Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. --Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? (→Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? (→Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
              • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. (→Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. (→Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. (→Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                          • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. (→Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                            • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                              • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). (→Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Banes 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's been said above already. Karmafist 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Misplaced Pages does not exist to help them achieve those goals. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote. The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Misplaced Pages(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED. Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete. However, I had separate occasion to reflect on Misplaced Pages:External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable. One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP. But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE×talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Misplaced Pages rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Misplaced Pages, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and for the lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Misplaced Pages discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)