Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:41, 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)

Ah, I apologize, for I am tired. I'm the one who brought this affair off-track, and the fault lies with me. Sorry. Geuiwogbil 10:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Geuiwogbil is right: "notability" is not measured by google hits, nor by Alexa rank. Notability here means nothing more than non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. We've been working on WP:N to try and make this clearer. The only thing to do with this talk page that can possibly lead to an article being created is to collect citations to discussion of ED in independent published sources. (That means published online or offline.) Discussion straying far from that topic is likely to get this talk page deleted again, if history is an indicator. -GTBacchus 10:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I will incorporate it into a section below, which can be used only for posting up citations:

Citations to discussion of ED in independent published sources

1. RFJason's Craigslist and Encyclopedia Dramatica TV News, MSNBC Smeelgova 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
2. Sex and the City, San Francisco Chronicle, September 17, 2006 Smeelgova 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).