Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 18 July 2006 (spam violation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:26, 18 July 2006 by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (spam violation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Encyclopædia Dramatica

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This site does not appear notable outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article fouls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Misplaced Pages article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. (→Netscott) 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. --Netscott 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep ED is going to be the new GNAA. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That, in and of itself is grounds to speedy the article.--MONGO 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Whether the GNAA or ED the site is liked/not liked is irrelevant. That article has proven it's notable in the fact that it survived 18+ deletion attempts. It's notable for better or worse.. rootology 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you have very unorthodox standards for deletion. This particular one does not comply with Wp policy. Karwynn (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep Already established notability once and twice. No new evidence or reasons provided. Karwynn (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- As far as notability to a large audience, see Maddox, Tucker Max, Animorphs, Last House on the Left, Livejournal; I could go on forever! Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Article's WP:V and WP:NOR problems are being cleaned up as we speak! Karwynn (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - If you are trying to argue for notability please provide some proper citations and not self-referential links. Thanks. --Netscott 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - I started Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica#Facts_with_sources with lists of facts and their sources. I am hoping people will add to it. It seems prodcutive to me. --Bouquet 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - See (already linked) previous deletions, notability established by precedent UNLESS you have something new to say. Which so far, you don't. Karwynn (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Not only is the site not notable, it is also a massive violation of WP:V. --Hipocrite 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, we seem to be able to come with sources for every dispute. WHy not let the dispute ride out first? Karwynn (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Not a single provided source has been a strong WP:RS - the provided sources were all to the site itself, or to old adminstrative pages on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing verifiable about this article. --Hipocrite 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - Why aren't you discussing it in the talk page then? I've seen nothing recently from you as far as reliability goes. Karwynn (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - I was very clear that wikipedia was not reliable, and that the site itself is of questionable reliability. I was clear that the livejournal hacking is totally unreferences. I was clear that you pulling out some themes you thought were notable as themes was WP:OR. You are ignoring this - because you like to wikifight. This ends my discussion with you. --Hipocrite 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        Said livejournal hacking mention was removed from the article minutes ago. We are in agreement. Karwynn (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - violates WP:V and WP:NOR (and does not seem feasible to cleanup the article, see the talk page....) --≈ jossi ≈ 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not feasible? Why not let us try first, and see how we do? That seems more in line with the Wikispirit. Karwynn (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting attitude about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, read the archives... --≈ jossi ≈ 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - I'm quite familiar with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep Although article is being vandalised by Misplaced Pages admins ~ IICATSII 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well I'm certainly not an admin and I'm not "vandalizing" the article. --Netscott 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, then he obviously isn't talking about you :-) He means MONGO, I would guess. Karwynn (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - Indeed, his conduct on this matter is not becoming of a Misplaced Pages admin. ~ IICATSII 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I think the progress in the talk pages is looking good. People are coming to consensus and inserting sources for material. Additionally, I think ED easily meets WP:WEB. Everyone is putting effort forth to create an encyclopedic article, I have faith in the process. --Bouquet 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep As mentioned this has been blocked from deletion twice, proving notability. Every point contested so far has been cited and proven, or is still up for dispute. Consider deletion request in possible bad faith/bias. Also, even if nearly every part of this article were legitimately removed, it is still just as notable as all these similar articles (just a small sample of similar articles on "niche market" wiki projects):

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.

Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- In Nettscott's defense, he wasn't involved in this before his nomination. More like an ill-informed nomination than a WP:POINT ciolation, it seems like. Karwynn (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Misplaced Pages is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.--MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Misplaced Pages and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Attacking Misplaced Pages is a small part of this site. Also, there are articles like Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Karwynn (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  Is there an unspoken rule about linking to sites that have any kind of negative view of Misplaced Pages or it's users, even in a small minority of their content? If so perhaps this should be pushed as a Policy change to make it thus, rather than a possibly bad faith deletion request. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV. T.K. 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - As we should. This is not an attack article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.--MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - Please provide a diff link proving the ED Misplaced Pages article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:
      - I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Misplaced Pages completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be. T.K. 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". (→Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia--Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Misplaced Pages... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? --Netscott 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Rootology.--Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Misplaced Pages Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.--Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- That would make sense, it it didn't rely on the premise that having a WP article about something is an endorsement of the subject, but it's not. See Flying Spaghetti Monster. NO one takes that seriously either. Karwynn (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yet Daniel Brandt still has an article. Why shouldn't ED? rootology 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Anons can't vote, correct? Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - This isn't a vote. --Merovingian 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - - Anons can comment, just as anyone else can, and a well argued anon comment can swing a debate. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Biased-target soliciation was sent out by User:Funcionar, drive by, starting at 22:30. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, no valid reasons for deletion, especially having articles about various other run-of-the mill wikis of significantly lesser importance. — Jul. 18, '06 <freak|talk>
Speedy keep Quite notable, though current article does need some cleanup. OhNoitsJamie 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, along with other articles about unimportant websites. This page is more promotional for ED than informative for our readers. Tom Harrison 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per rootology, and de-list as soon as possible. I HEAR THE TROLLS A-COMIN'!!! --Merovingian 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Recived biased solicitation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Clearly notable, and useful. Sure it should be cleaned up and improved, but that's no reason for deletion. I might go as far as to say this AfD was proposed in bad faith. --Jmax- 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Jmax, Rootology, and others. --CharlotteWebb 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete not seeing the notability. --Pboyd04 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Recived biased solicitation, but voted the other way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Where are you seeing this? Please prove and cite each instance where you say this. rootology 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    - The spam message was, "Please come to Encyclopædia Dramatica to help vote in the deletion" which sounds more like it's supporting the deletion. The account that generated all of the spam has been indef. blocked and I've reverted all of the spam. (→Netscott) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - I see a user asked for people to comment, but not to comment either way. Is it biased to simply draw attention to a vote's existence? As I named you as well in my complaint I think you need to recuse yourself a bit. This is silly and biased on your part. rootology 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        Targets were selected for obvious reasons. Per WP:SPAM - "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think this is all in bad faith due to the attack article on MONGO that was previously ED's article of the week, which then lead to the admin edit-war. Ryūlóng 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)