Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 7 November 2006

Log of previous AFD attempts.

1. Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica December 13 - 18 2004 Delete
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica June 2 - 8 2005 Keep
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica March 24 - 30 2006 No consensus
4. 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.
Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

— Arbitration Committee, Requests for Arbitration: Mongo, Findings

Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it.
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)

— Arbitration Committee, Requests for Arbitration: Mongo, Remedies

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)

No, I didn't "stumble" on this page. I read ED, and wonder why Misplaced Pages hasn't got an article on it. And how are reasoned arguments spamming? 82.42.218.122 22:02, 26 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)

Why shouldn't we start the debate over again? And why wait a couple of months? There's an obvious problem here: Uncyclopedia is featured, and tbh I think it's worth a mention, and obviously so did other people: so why isn't ED? ED has more reasons to be mentioned: it's been part of controversy that's been featured on the news. There's also Misplaced Pages controversy that's certainly worth documenting, if only to comment on how successful and objective the project can really be with an administration elite. Or is that not a topic we're allowed to discuss? There should be another vote. 82.42.218.122 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We should not have another vote because 1) AfDs are not votes, neither are deletion reviews, we discuss not vote here 2) Last discussion was just last month! 3) The community decision was to delete and the deletion has already been reviewed twice. Restarting closed discussions over and over again to try to get a different result is just pointless and disruptive. Now I can't remember how I got to this page, but I am leaving this matter - as all you need to know is really on top of the page already and there is no point in me replying to everyone questioning it.--Konst.able 00:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the lasty discussion was in July. And it's ironic tht you say "restarting closed discussions over and over again to try and get a different result," since that's what got it deleted in the first place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not participated in any of those discussions, not even the more recent ones, neither have I read any them, but there are quite big gaps between them all (6 months, 9 months, 4 months). Now it's been just over 1 month since the last review. Are we going to bring this matter every month now? If it wasn't fair to keep restarting the discussions there I still see no reason why this excuses restarting the long discussions yet again. But do as you will, I'm not stopping anyone, I just see no point to do it so soon - it will just annoy everyone to see it brought up yet again and will end up being a speedy close even if just because no time has passed since the previous review.--Konst.able 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's been roughly four months since the last review, not one. The "one" you continually refer to was never actually a discussion, it was speedy closed out of process. I'm not going to restart the discussion anytime soon, but the MSNBC feature throws a major wrench in the works, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The website offended the wrong people here, it makes a lot of hurtful personal attacks about wikipedians. Even if it becomes really notable, the article still probably won't be recreated, because it attacks our sysops. Remember that the site was created out of an unfavorable AfD closing. In this light, they've followed WP:DENY and removed the article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my last comment was deleted by some emo mod, so let me just repost the gist of what I had to say: stop being vindictive and reform the article. It's quite evident that the site is completely notable and has a cult fanbase, so therefore the only reason the Wiki entry is not being recreated is because a bunch of mods are being babies and holding a grudge against said site for making fun of them and Misplaced Pages. Are you people really THAT petty? Way to put personal politics before encyclopediac interest, hypocrites. FreakmanJ 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY doesn't apply to article subjects... GNAA, 4chan, etc. This is obvious. Misplaced Pages doesn't take a stance against internet trolling in mainspace. Also, ED's not a troll wiki m'kay. Point it, WP:DENY doesn't give WP sysops leeway to make subjective value judgements on article subjects. Not that I want an ED article here (see below), but just sayin'. Miltopia 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is featured on MSNBC

ED is featured on MSNBC

this justifies relevance for the website based on Wiki standards.

82.42.218.122 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's really only one notable point to this whole story and that centers on Internet privacy questions surrounding Jason Fortuny's "experiment". WP has that angle covered. (→Netscott) 12:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's just one press report. Sure, individual ones aren't enough on their own, but it's one of many. Many. Most subjects here would not get an article based on only one. But the point is, this isn't just blogs and online news anymore, it's REAL LIFE OMG. I personally don't want an ED article (NO chance of neutrality with this crowd), but hey - it's something to think about. Miltopia 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Is it correct that, per the arbcom decision above, there will never be an article about ED, regardless of how notable ED is or might become in the future? That seems somehow unencyclopaedic. —Ashley Y 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Makes you wonder. http://www.antiwikipedia.com/MONGO Ribonucleic 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm sorry I brought it up now... —Ashley Y 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:-D Lol Miltopia 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stopped By

I heard about Encyclopedia Dramatica, and stopped by here to check it out before I went to the site. I was a little disappointed to find that there's no entry. I don't want to get into the whole debate, but I'm just documenting this. minidoxigirli_-contribs 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: notability

Alexa ranking: 10,689

Google search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica" -site:encyclopediadramatica.com: 55,000+ results

Honestly, it seems to have a large following, and I think it should at least go in the list of wikis (which includes entries on obscure wikis such as Encyclopedia Gamia (~30,000 google results for "Encyclopedia Gamia" and Alexa rank 1,011,030) and ZineWiki (17,500 google hits and Alexa rank 2,906,398), both of which also have their own articles).—Wasabe3543 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's high notiability is the only reason why the admins haven't blanked this talk page like they have done before it got all that media coverage of late. They got rid of its article in a kangaroo court simply because they didn't like the material on the site. I'm not saying the material is angelic or anything like that, just that's the secret reasoning behind Misplaced Pages's reasons for its non-inclusion. Anomo 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the voices for deletion, and someone who likes ED very much, that's not an accurate statement. The reason the article got deleted was that, at the time, there wasn't any information in reliable secondary sources. That made the contents of the article "original research", which is the only reason for deletion that many of us were citing in that discussion. Some of us interpret WP:NOR kind of narrowly, and take it rather seriously. I hate to be tarred with the "ED hater" brush, seeing as I love ED and consider several of its editors my friends. If the article had consisted of content verifiable in reliable secondary sources, then it would still be here, like Wikitruth is.

By now, ArbCom has made a ruling against even linking to ED from this website, so I don't see recreation happening very easily. The best way for it to happen is for those supporting the article to hold themselves to a high standard of reliable sources and come up with an article that wouldn't fall afoul of anybody's definition of original research. Arguing to keep an unpopular article and at the same time appearing lax in one's application of WP:V and WP:NOR is a sure recipe for failure. -GTBacchus 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)