| Revision as of 04:00, 25 October 2006 editG.W. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,928 editsm Added year.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:44, 25 October 2006 edit undoKonstable (talk | contribs)7,893 edits +info on Deletion Reviews to the AfD listNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| #] March 24 - 30 2006 '''No consensus''' | #] March 24 - 30 2006 '''No consensus''' | ||
| #] July 19 - 23 2006 '''Delete''' | #] July 19 - 23 2006 '''Delete''' | ||
| #: July 23-29 2006 '''Endorse deletion''' | |||
| #: September 5-6 2006 '''Endorse deletion''' | |||
| {{Quotation|"The result was '''Delete'''. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Misplaced Pages has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia damatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on."|]|] 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}} | {{Quotation|"The result was '''Delete'''. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Misplaced Pages has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia damatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on."|]|] 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}} | ||
Revision as of 04:44, 25 October 2006
| Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD Nominations |
Log of previous AFD attempts.
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica December 13 - 18 2004 Delete
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica June 2 - 8 2005 Keep
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica March 24 - 30 2006 No consensus
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) July 19 - 23 2006 Delete
- First deletion review July 23-29 2006 Endorse deletion
- Second deletion review September 5-6 2006 Endorse deletion
"The result was Delete. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Misplaced Pages has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia damatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on."
— Nandesuka, Encyclopædia Dramatica, 3rd AFD Nomination 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Alexa ranking
- I just stumbled upon this page, and had never heard of Encyclopedia Dramatica before. I wanted to verify that it's not notable, but then I did a traffic ranking check on Alexa.
The website for Encyclopedia Dramatica is ranked 11,491!!!
That's very, very high.
So someone explain to me how this site is not worthy of at least some sort of small article explaining briefly, um, what they do? Yours, Smeelgova 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC). -- lol, they annoyed some wiki admin so now wikipedia the totally unbiased encyclopedia refuses to list them, despite the fact they list the crappy Uncyclopedia 82.42.218.122 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Could someone please provide the links to relevant arbitrations and AFDs relating to this subject here on the discussion page, so people new to this incident like myself can find out why an articel with an Alexa page rank of 11,491 is not allowed on Misplaced Pages? Yours, Smeelgova 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC).