Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 25 March 2006

Encyclopædia Dramatica

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

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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)

• I say delete for nonnotability. --Nintendorulez talk 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. "encyclopedia dramatica" gets 11 unique Google hits (out of 248,000 total), all of which appear to be related to ED, Misplaced Pages, or Wikicities. On another note, haven't we gone through this before? Hermione1980 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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? Here is the most frequent contributor. He uses the name Bastardman Hardvice 06:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NN. — nathanrdotcom 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Says WP:NN - "This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Regardless, my vote stands. — nathanrdotcom 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You vote delete based on a nonexistent policy/guideline. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • No, my vote based on my decision. If the policy/guideline wasn't existant, it wouldn't be there. It is, and it is. Before you even start on me, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Every time I express an opinion, you're there poking holes in it and attacking me. It's not appreciated. — nathanrdotcom 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, please read those, along with what you quote falsely as a policy. And don't message me on IRC and then e-mail me when I don't respond right away if you don't care to actually hear anything. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per last three VfD/AfD's. Leave it alone already. Septentrionalis 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Per GNAA #8, you are voting on the page itself, not its previous AFDs. Have you found a reliable source for this article? Ashibaka tock 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Per GNAA #8, the article was speedy kept because of its previous AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Which was a flagrant abuse of the deletion process. Ashibaka tock 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In my mind, so is AfDing an article multiple times with the intent to get the result you wanted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough already, sheesh. AfD shouldn't be used to get a result because you weren't happy with it the first time. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 17k googles and a 32k alexa ranking. We have plently of articles on websites that contain almost no information that is verifiable information from reliable sources. Not even Slashdot is sourced. kotepho 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then it ought to be. WP:V is policy, not a guideline. Ashibaka tock 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Policy is only policy. There is concensus shown by many AFDs and articles that we can go without WP:RS sometimes. Do you deny that if this was Slashdot it would have already been speedy kept? kotepho 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Well, reliable sources could concievably be found for Slashdot, but not for this site. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sure I could find reliables sources that mention /., but that would still leave a large portion of the article unsourced; we would have to deal with a stub. P.S. this isn't because of your article, right? kotepho 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  I was hoping to give some sort of outside source to attest to its lack of veracity, and then realized that there were no outside sources at all and never would be Ashibaka tock 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  FWIW I understand your concerns, but it is more known for the drama portion than the funny portion. I would be OK with this article being beaten down to a substub that just skips the discussion entirely. Also, why are you using <small> I only used it for the joke. kotepho 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Sshhh! Quiet, this is a library! Ashibaka tock 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Change the policy if necessary. Scranchuse 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you want to delete this? If "no reliable third-party sources" made a page eligible for deletion (and define reliable, etc...), 99% of Misplaced Pages's current content should be wiped off. --Boborok 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  It was a longwinded way of saying that it's non-notable. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Sure they are not very original and not notable, but I don't agree that "non-notable" should make an article eligible for deletion. If it's left in Misplaced Pages it hurts nobody. If it's being called "non-notable" it just angers/excites those few for whom it is (which is trolling). --Boborok 02:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, if it's left in Misplaced Pages it does hurt some people, because the article styles it as a tabloid-ish online encyclopedia rather than a joke wiki similar to Uncyclopedia, and there's no way to challenge that without citing nonexistent secondary sources. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable website. Any WP:RS issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --Blu Aardvark | 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of previous AfDs -- ED is soooo oldmeme. Catamorphism 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Raul654 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's as notable as any other website featured on Misplaced Pages. --Aemilia 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you saying that Encyclopedia Dramatica is as notable as Google? Catamorphism 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Perhaps you can back up that accusation sometime? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

The above is a troll, yay for trolls, do they get to vote? SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been through AfD a few dozen times before. Enough already. SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  As above, we are talking about the article, not its previous AfD attempts. Ashibaka tock 12:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. *drew 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. Ëvilphoenix 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)