| Revision as of 10:20, 30 December 2006 editG.W. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,928 edits Response.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:26, 30 December 2006 edit undoG.W. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,928 edits →Notability: Refining my statement.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :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) | :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) | ||
| ::I have no idea, I was not involved with that. There was a talk page earlier which discussed that, but it was deleted. Interesting enough as it is to delete and protect a page from ever being re-created, it is even more suspicious to delete the ''talk-page'' about that article, so that editors cannot even discuss the ''potential'' need for the article. All very interesting. ] 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC). | ::I have no idea, I was not involved with that. There was a talk page earlier which discussed that, but it was deleted. Interesting enough as it is to delete and protect a page from ever being re-created, it is even more suspicious to delete the ''talk-page'' about that article, so that editors cannot even discuss the ''potential'' need for the article. All very interesting. ] 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC). | ||
| :::This entire thing, across multiple Wikis, VFDs, AFDs, DRVs, ARBs, Talk pages, and years, is indeed ''profoundly'' interesting. |
:::This entire thing, across multiple Wikis, VFDs, AFDs, DRVs, ARBs, Talk pages, and years, is indeed ''profoundly'' interesting. I've spent many a night poring over those old transcripts and trying to divine at the complex, tempestuous, ''Baroque'', emotions of the principal Actors in this grave Stage-Drama. I am nonetheless going to withhold my personal opinions, on any of ''those'' issues, (which are not relevant to this page, if I remember the talk page guidelines correctly) and stick to the whole dull "sources" affair. The 3rd AFD, stripped of whatever irrelevant material you or I might see in it, still falls down to that same lack of sources. ] 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 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)
- I have no idea, I was not involved with that. There was a talk page earlier which discussed that, but it was deleted. Interesting enough as it is to delete and protect a page from ever being re-created, it is even more suspicious to delete the talk-page about that article, so that editors cannot even discuss the potential need for the article. All very interesting. Smeelgova 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
- This entire thing, across multiple Wikis, VFDs, AFDs, DRVs, ARBs, Talk pages, and years, is indeed profoundly interesting. I've spent many a night poring over those old transcripts and trying to divine at the complex, tempestuous, Baroque, emotions of the principal Actors in this grave Stage-Drama. I am nonetheless going to withhold my personal opinions, on any of those issues, (which are not relevant to this page, if I remember the talk page guidelines correctly) and stick to the whole dull "sources" affair. The 3rd AFD, stripped of whatever irrelevant material you or I might see in it, still falls down to that same lack of sources. Geuiwogbil 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea, I was not involved with that. There was a talk page earlier which discussed that, but it was deleted. Interesting enough as it is to delete and protect a page from ever being re-created, it is even more suspicious to delete the talk-page about that article, so that editors cannot even discuss the potential need for the article. All very interesting. Smeelgova 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC).