| Revision as of 14:07, 26 October 2006 editJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits →This looks pretty fishy← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:48, 26 October 2006 edit undoKonstable (talk | contribs)7,893 edits →This looks pretty fishy: matter is closedNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| With all the useless crap on wikipedia, are you telling me that ED is less notable than, say, ], a shock site created by a couple of trolls? What kind of ] are we talking here? OK, I know that "one man's crap . . ." but my point still on honesty stands. --] 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | With all the useless crap on wikipedia, are you telling me that ED is less notable than, say, ], a shock site created by a couple of trolls? What kind of ] are we talking here? OK, I know that "one man's crap . . ." but my point still on honesty stands. --] 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :It is pointless to argue, the AfD has been passed and two deletion reviews have went through, let's not start the debate all over again... ] was actually nominated for deletion (twice) straight after the ED AfD, but it passed. You may want to just look over those arguments there (linked from its talk page) rather than try to start up new debates here. Same goes for other sites. If you think they are not notable, maybe they should be nominated for deletion - but it doesn't work as an argument to restore this one. As it is, community consensus on this article has been reached and the matter is closed. Maybe later in a couple of months if something ''new'' comes up which changes the situation it can be put up for review again.--]<sup>]</sup> 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:48, 26 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 Speedy closed
Encyclopædia Dramatica (ED) is a wiki which spoofs and caricatures Misplaced Pages. Its content is provocative, satirical, and often interesting. It makes no pretense of presenting accurate information, focusing rather on what is termed "drama", which is to say, interesting provocative material concerning the internet and its memes.
— Arbitration Committee, Requests for Arbitration: Mongo, Findings
Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it.
— Arbitration Committee, Requests for Arbitration: Mongo, Remedies
Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Misplaced Pages and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Misplaced Pages hats while here.
Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 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).
- I don't understand why this was deleted and not other pages like Uncyclopedia. I read the delete discussion, but the reasons could apply to so many pages on wikipedia. Em-El 08:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's more an argument to get rid of Uncyclopedia and other articles than to keep this one. Yes, we should get around to deleted a great many pages on wikipedia. 172.130.239.49 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Alexa is compleely worthless for testing popularity, as it is non-representative and extremely easy to manipulate simpl by signing up and going to your own site over and over. I severely doubt that someone "stumbled upon this page" and touts an Alexa ranking in order to argue for its inclusion, as it seems too calculated. The article is gone because it was only herein the first place through calculated spamming and sockpuppets, so more spamming and sockpuppets will not bring it back. 172.130.239.49 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I belive that there is nothing wrong with writing an article about ED. you may say its not notalble, i say its becuase ED has some bad background history with some of the users of wikipedia. hence theres a negative tone to it... or some may just not simply know about it but dont say it shouldnt be written just becuase.
This looks pretty fishy
With all the useless crap on wikipedia, are you telling me that ED is less notable than, say, Last Measure, a shock site created by a couple of trolls? What kind of intellectual honesty are we talking here? OK, I know that "one man's crap . . ." but my point still on honesty stands. --Justanother 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is pointless to argue, the AfD has been passed and two deletion reviews have went through, let's not start the debate all over again... Uncyclopedia was actually nominated for deletion (twice) straight after the ED AfD, but it passed. You may want to just look over those arguments there (linked from its talk page) rather than try to start up new debates here. Same goes for other sites. If you think they are not notable, maybe they should be nominated for deletion - but it doesn't work as an argument to restore this one. As it is, community consensus on this article has been reached and the matter is closed. Maybe later in a couple of months if something new comes up which changes the situation it can be put up for review again.--Konst.able 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)