| Revision as of 10:01, 30 December 2006 editG.W. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,928 edits →Notability: Rearranged some of my response.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:02, 30 December 2006 edit undoG.W. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,928 edits Additional note.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :I believe the issue is, was, and continues to be, the lack of reliable, independent third-party sources which speak of ED in such a fashion that might allow the construction of an encyclopedic article by themselves. No matter how many offhand mentions, parallels, or quotations one may find regarding ED, unless one could construct a wikipedia article about ED from them, and from them alone, they are useless. It's not a ] thing, it's more a ] thing, by way of ]. AS a sidenote, none of the above sources provides justification for ED under ]'s criteria, so notability questions remain unanswered. Until such time as useful policy-compliant sources are provided, this article will probably remain in a type of wiki-limbo, interspersed with periods of brimstone and hellfire. Oh, and we still can't link to the website, as per ]. | :I believe the issue is, was, and continues to be, the lack of reliable, independent third-party sources which speak of ED in such a fashion that might allow the construction of an encyclopedic article by themselves. No matter how many offhand mentions, parallels, or quotations one may find regarding ED, unless one could construct a wikipedia article about ED from them, and from them alone, they are useless. It's not a ] thing, it's more a ] thing, by way of ]. AS a sidenote, none of the above sources provides justification for ED under ]'s criteria, so notability questions remain unanswered. Until such time as useful policy-compliant sources are provided, this article will probably remain in a type of wiki-limbo, interspersed with periods of brimstone and hellfire. Oh, and we still can't link to the website, as per ]. | ||
| :Good luck on everything! ] 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | :Good luck on everything! ] 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm still surprised this page exists. Didn't the past few Deletion Reviews go the other way? Or did I miss something? ] 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:02, 30 December 2006
Notability
- RFJason's Craigslist and Encyclopedia Dramatica TV News, MSNBC
- 119,000 google hits for "Encyclopedia Dramatica"
- 9,585 Traffic Rank on Alexa.
- What are other people's thoughts on notability for an article at this point? Smeelgova 08:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
- I believe the issue is, was, and continues to be, the lack of reliable, independent third-party sources which speak of ED in such a fashion that might allow the construction of an encyclopedic article by themselves. No matter how many offhand mentions, parallels, or quotations one may find regarding ED, unless one could construct a wikipedia article about ED from them, and from them alone, they are useless. It's not a WP:N thing, it's more a WP:V thing, by way of WP:RS. AS a sidenote, none of the above sources provides justification for ED under WP:WEB's criteria, so notability questions remain unanswered. Until such time as useful policy-compliant sources are provided, this article will probably remain in a type of wiki-limbo, interspersed with periods of brimstone and hellfire. Oh, and we still can't link to the website, as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED.
- Good luck on everything! Geuiwogbil 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still surprised this page exists. Didn't the past few Deletion Reviews go the other way? Or did I miss something? Geuiwogbil 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)