The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Encyclopaedia Dramatica

There are no reliable third-party sources (see WP:V, Wikipedia:Reliable sources) which discuss this non-notable website. Quote from the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

The content of this article is unverifiable, and any discussion of its content (i.e., the entire article right now) qualifies as original research. Delete as nn and unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should abandon this AfD. I will take up the nomination. Delete as a non-notable website. Ifnord 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind again. I take back my withdrawal and am preparing to delete this as a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NOR unless a strong argument can be given against it. Ashibaka tock 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I say delete for nonnotability. --Nintendorulez talk 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. "encyclopedia dramatica" gets 11 unique Google hits (out of 248,000 total), all of which appear to be related to ED, Wikipedia, or Wikicities. On another note, haven't we gone through this before? Hermione1980 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why don't you go to every AFD and write "abstain" as your vote. Lack of voter turnout is the reason for the whitehouse's problems. Oh and why should encyclopedia dramatica go? www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:Bastardman Here is the most frequent contributor. He uses the name Bastardman Hardvice 06:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason I posted anything here is because the article is on my watchlist. I feel it is my duty to comment whenever an article on my watchlist is AfD'd. I was originally going to vote keep, but when I saw the nominator's reasons and ran my own Google search, I was not strongly swayed enough to vote delete, but did not wish to vote keep either. I'm not sure what your comments about voter turnout and Bastardman have to do with my vote. Hermione1980 00:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NN. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says WP:NN - "This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless, my vote stands. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You vote delete based on a nonexistent policy/guideline. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, my vote based on my decision. If the policy/guideline wasn't existant, it wouldn't be there. It is, and it is. Before you even start on me, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Every time I express an opinion, you're there poking holes in it and attacking me. It's not appreciated. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, please read those, along with what you quote falsely as a policy. And don't message me on IRC and then e-mail me when I don't respond right away if you don't care to actually hear anything. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And trying to flood me off IRC is acceptable behaviour, right? You didn't even read the e-mail so don't be so quick to tell me what was and was not in it. Don't be so quick to insult others when you're not perfect either, thanks ever so much. This from someone who was supposedly willing to make deals while all the while, taking every opportunity to insult me. GROW UP. There is no excuse to personally attack someone on Wikipedia. Do not make such attacks. See Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. If you cannot keep a cool head while editing, don't participate in AfDs. You've been told twice that this is not the acceptable way to treat another Wikipedian and you still can't grasp the concept. You've behaved the same way in the LJ Drama AfD (while keeping up a façade of wanting discuss our issues) and the same here too. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks, period. If you don't personally like me, that's too bad - your problem - don't take it to AfDs and start attacking me, that is unacceptable. Admins are watching this page, I hope you get warned at least. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 11:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • • When you can point out when I've insulted you, maybe this will be worth responding to further. Give it a rest, seriously. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last three VfD/AfD's. Leave it alone already. Septentrionalis 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per GNAA #8, you are voting on the page itself, not its previous AFDs. Have you found a reliable source for this article? Ashibaka tock 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per GNAA #8, the article was speedy kept because of its previous AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which was a flagrant abuse of the deletion process. Ashibaka tock 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my mind, so is AfDing an article multiple times with the intent to get the result you wanted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Previous history on this article was delete, delete, keep so perhaps the "AfDing an article multiple times" in the hope of different results each time has already occurred? This article is merely a recreate of the twice-deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica (without the æ). A related article on LJ Drama has also been on AfD recently with an outcome of delete. --carlb 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough already, sheesh. AfD shouldn't be used to get a result because you weren't happy with it the first time. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 17k googles and a 32k alexa ranking. We have plenty of articles on websites that contain almost no information that is verifiable information from reliable sources. Not even Slashdot is sourced. kotepho 01:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it ought to be. WP:V is policy, not a guideline. Ashibaka tock 01:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Policy is only policy. There is concensus shown by many AFDs and articles that we can go without WP:RS sometimes. Do you deny that if this was Slashdot it would have already been speedy kept? kotepho 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, reliable sources could concievably be found for Slashdot, but not for this site. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure I could find reliables sources that mention /., but that would still leave a large portion of the article unsourced; we would have to deal with a stub. P.S. this isn't because of your article, right? kotepho 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I was hoping to give some sort of outside source to attest to its lack of veracity, and then realized that there were no outside sources at all and never would be Ashibaka tock 02:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I understand your concerns, but it is more known for the drama portion than the funny portion. I would be OK with this article being beaten down to a substub that just skips the discussion entirely. Also, why are you using <small> I only used it for the joke. kotepho 03:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sshhh! Quiet, this is a library! Ashibaka tock 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Change the policy if necessary. Scranchuse 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you want to delete this? If "no reliable third-party sources" made a page eligible for deletion (and define reliable, etc...), 99% of Wikipedia's current content should be wiped off. --Boborok 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a longwinded way of saying that it's non-notable. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure they are not very original and not notable, but I don't agree that "non-notable" should make an article eligible for deletion. If it's left in Wikipedia it hurts nobody. If it's being called "non-notable" it just angers/excites those few for whom it is (which is trolling). --Boborok 02:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, if it's left in Wikipedia it does hurt some people, because the article styles it as a tabloid-ish online encyclopedia rather than a joke wiki similar to Uncyclopedia, and there's no way to challenge that without citing nonexistent secondary sources. Ashibaka tock 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable website. Any WP:RS issues should be taken up on the articles talk page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regardless of previous AfDs -- ED is soooo oldmeme. Catamorphism 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Raul654 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's as notable as any other website featured on Wikipedia. --Aemilia 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you saying that Encyclopedia Dramatica is as notable as Google? Catamorphism 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website. If it's kept, the article should be reduced to a much shorter article, like "encyclopedia dramatica contains non-serious articles, which on very rare occasion are funny." April Furs Day should be left in though. I wonder if 4chan will do it this year like last. A more significant reason for is moving is that the domain is encyclopedia not encyclopaedia, and there is no "ae" key on keyboards, so it needs to be renamed at least. DyslexicEditor 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can back up that accusation sometime? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because all the admins of and frequent editors of encyclopedia dramatica come to wikipedia under tons of names each and alter the article to promote the website." Well you can say what you want, but we (the ED admins) have explicitly told our users, and other admins for that matter, not to troll the article or stack votes pertaining to AfDs etc. Take that as you will. -Drunkenlazybastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said a lot and I don't know which you refer to. I first said that many of the keep votes and edits on the article promoting the site are from ED admins and frequent contributors--you are one badlydrawnjeff (admin and frequent contributor to ED) so you proved that. Maybe you're referring to the fact that your site is rarely funny, well that's more of an opinion, not accusation. April Furs day? Well... hmm.. DyslexicEditor 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see, I don't use "tons of names to alter the article," nor do I really go around promoting the website. The rest is a bunch of POV stuff that would never fly in an article either, but you're laying out some fairly dubious charges. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The issue of using "tons of names to alter the article" was raised the better part of a year ago (see talkpage) in connection with the repeated deletion of info from the article as to who owns ED - this question is nothing new here. --carlb 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hi everybody. I am Hardvice, an admin on encyclopedia dramatica and even I think it is unnotable enough that it does not belong on wikipedia. Hardvice 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a troll, yay for trolls, do they get to vote? SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been through AfD a few dozen times before. Enough already. SchmuckyTheCat 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As above, we are talking about the article, not its previous AfD attempts. Ashibaka tock 12:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so am I talking about the article. Using the website itself as a primary source about the website isn't a verifiability problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. *drew 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most of the facts cited in the article are self-evident from a cursory examation of the wiki and not in need of sources. --Weevlos 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock puppet? --Conti|✉ 16:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for now. I don't really think the "no reliable third-party sources" argument is a good one, over half of our articles don't have these kind of sources. I don't care that much for the actual article, but I think it's a good way to show what kind of idiots these guys actually are. :) --Conti|✉ 16:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Non-notability claims are false, 18400 Google hits and a 32000 Alexa Ranking is a lot more than your average Wikipedia-featuring website has. While we're at that, let's make a bot randomly mark articles under Category:Websites for deletion. For example, Uncyclopedia and Kamelopedia, the first two website links that I found aren't more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. I strongly object deleting this article, personal fights and grudges have no place in a encyclopedia. Some Wikipedians strongly dislike Encyclopedia Dramatica because they had their own personal fights with Encyclopedia Dramatica editors in the past (such as User:nathanrdotcom). Well, Wikipedia isn't your personal website. We're striving to build a online encyclopedia will all sorts of content, not just content that we particularly like. (I thought censorship was considered harmful here?) Just because you dislike something, it doesn't make it non-notable. (See GNAA, for example.) This is a online encyclopedia, not an elementary school. You can't make things go away just by deleting their articles on Wikipedia. Go pick your fights elsewhere. ~ Mpontes 23:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment Are you kidding? Uncyclopedia is not more notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica? Here, I'll use your own sources. Uncyclopedia has 499,000 Google hits even after being "banned" and a 8,201 rank on Alexa. I think you'll notice that 499,000 is more than 18400, and that 8,201 is a higher rank than 32,000. So in terms of just pure stats, Uncyclopedia is literally about 4 times more notable than ED. Also you have to take into consideration all the extremely notable newspapers Uncyclopedia has been featured in. The source? You may have heard of it, it's called Wikipedia. Unfortunately, obscenity standards prevent newspapers from featuring Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Savethemooses 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you kidding? I love how you compare my query for `"encyclopedia dramatica" -wikipedia -site:encyclopediadramatica.com` with a query for `uncyclopedia`. Notice how mine is specifically crafted and yours is filled to the brim with things that have nothing to do with Uncyclopedia.org? Specifically a book with the title Uncyclopedia, another book titled The Baseball Uncyclopedia along with wikipedia and its mirrors? `"encyclopedia dramatica" OR "encyclopædia dramatica" OR "encyclopediadramatica" -site:wikipedia.org -site:answers.com -site:encyclopediadramatica.com` is 53,500 while `uncyclopedia -site:wikipedia.org -site:answers.com -site:uncyclopedia.org -"baseball uncyclopedia" -gideon` gives 468,000. I'm all for using the google test but you should at least give your query a little thought and know its limits. I wouldn't argue that ED is as notable as Uncyclopedia, but that google hits comparison was apples to bowling balls. kotepho 04:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Okay, under your search criteria Uncyclopedia still recieves four times more hits. My search "Uncyclopedia -baseball -cricket -trivia -site:wikipedia.org -site:uncyclopedia.org" still comes up with 450,000 results. ED just pales in comparasion. It's a trashy non-notable detriment to the internet and discredit to our entire generation. Uncyclopedia has been featured in The New York Times, the Boston Herald, and the London Guardian among others. Believe me, I've had four of my own articles from Uncyclopedia cited in some of these newspapers. The best ED can come up with is a linkfilter quote from a year-and-a-half ago. It would be to Wikipedia's benefit to scourge it of any evidence of its existence. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Even better, if you want to see how notable each is among the people, Uncyclopedia has 5,069 hits on Google Blog Search compared with 284 with ED, which is devestatingly ironic considering ED deals almost exclusively with "drama" on blogs. Adding the restiction -livejournal.com brings ED's total down to 117, meaning over half of all references on the blogs searched come from the site ED originated from. --Savethemooses 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I think google ranking may be corrupt. I thought we go by page counts. Also you mentioned wikipedia as a media source. This made me think of an edit to make. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loose_Change_%28video%29&diff=45967831&oldid=45860300 Anyone who has seen that documentary sees them with a camera over wikipedia saying it says something and well I could make a TV show with wikipedia as my sources, and then change wikipedia to make it say what I want. Even if the fastest bot (the Curps bot) reverts me in a second, on my computer my edit will show like it's current. DyslexicEditor 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I didn't cite Wikipedia as a media source. I mentioned Wikipedia as the one location where many of the media sources Uncyc has been cited in is compiled. I can give you links to those articles. The fact of the matter is that Uncyclopedia is extremely more notable than ED. --Savethemooses 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said ED was as notable or anywhere near as close as Uncyclopedia. I just said make sure you are comparing apples to apples. kotepho 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Before you (and the ED crew) go spreading even more misinformation about me, I'll thank you to remember one thing. I went on my 'own personal fight' because misinformation was being used about me in the LJ Drama article (and kept getting reverted back, and absolutely no attempt was made to verify the info with me which made it a violation of WP:NOR). Think about that next time you make accusations about what I supposedly did that aren't true. I remind you of WP:NPA. (Do not damage the reputation of other Wikipedians should be a policy as well). Anyways, don't use me in your little examples unless you can get your facts straight. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merely clicked the link on your webpage and noticed that you have a nice message directed to visitors from Encyclopedia Dramatica on your main page. It wasn't a personal attack, I was merely stating you have a grudge against Encyclopedia Dramatica -- it isn't a secret either, because you mention it on the main page of your site. I wasn't saying you were wrong or right; I don't know the backstory and I obviously wouldn't have any facts to back it up. Just stating that you do dislike them a lot, which I think that is true. Linking people to WP:NPA when they are only stating obvious facts is also a bit of an ad hominem, isn't it? (Also, I don't think they care about WP:NOR or any of our other policies, considering their wiki isn't Wikipedia. But that's just me.) ~ Mpontes 15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, who are you lashing out at?! Ashibaka tock 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attack anyone. I've just grown very tired of seeing people frivolously marking articles about things that they dislike for deletion. It's just a waste of everyone's time. ~ Mpontes 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some things do not have published reliable third-party sources, yet are still of interest and sufficient notability for listing. ED is one of them. I don't particularly like the site, but it should have an article. GreenReaper 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles there really really really are anti-furry. I thought you'd at the very least want to merge it with another article. Maybe unfunny ? DyslexicEditor 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of that. Disagreeing with a website's topic is not grounds for removing articles about it, and certainly not "merging" it with a redirect that you made half a year ago. The website is the item of interest, not the word they coined. GreenReaper 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• EXTREME KEEP. Bad faith nomination. Author is self-admittedly abusing the same policy that got The Game (game) deleted; see Talk:The Game (game) for detail. This is therefore a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Kinitawowi 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, I nominated a website for deletion based on this same policy, and the consensus seems to be that it's notable even without any secondary sources. Maybe we should send this to DRV based on that. Ashibaka tock 13:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)" Uh... what's the problem? Ashibaka tock 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Site doesn't seem incredibly active, but more active than some foundation projects. Also, I've heard of it twice from LJer friends. And article is too big to merge into LJ's article. JeffBurdges 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP: notable website. possible bad faith nomination / WP:POINT violation. Interestingstuffadder 16:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally don't understand what you or the other guy are talking about. Ashibaka tock 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This website is notable and funny, I don't see any reason to delete it. --Eastlaw 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being about a funny website is not a grounds for keeping an article. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability is questionable (this is a recreate of a page twice deleted, kept the third time). This is a rather small website and rather limited in scope and activity. This article appears to be being used as a sandbox, a soapbox or an advertisement for a website; info the owners of that site don't want included has been repeatedly deleted via various means including sockpuppetry and DMCA misuse. Unless this can be dramatically cleaned up and merged somewhere else (such as a list of wikis on similar/related topics), this smacks more of "I want to advertise my website on the Wikipædia" than of actual useful encyclopædic content. I question whether we need an entire article about this one individual wiki. --carlb 17:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Keep. It has enough notability to at least deserve a mention. Oftentimes Wikipedians refer to this as dumping ground for VfD'd articles on AFDs, so it obviously has SOME notability. Crazyswordsman 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: I change my vote to Strong Merge. Crazyswordsman 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• BOOM. It's extremely non-notable (as evidenced by the 100000 ads available, 3 sold thing) and more or less inactive. Blow 'er up unless you're going to add her to List of shock sites :P --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I admit that I do not care for this website, but that's not why I think this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a web directory and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements. The article does not read in an encyclopediac style and with the subject matter, it doesn't seem like it could. The website itself centers on non-notability, so any description thereof would be non-notable. The history of the website isn't notable, the content isn't, and thus an article wouldn't be (and isn't). The site is notable, IMO, but not more than dicdef. --Keitei (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, you wouldn't mind a merge? Crazyswordsman 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a merge, per se. Perhaps a mention in a relevant article (of which I can't think of any), but there isn't much notability to it besides its definition. But the majority of the content of the article has no place on Wikipedia, IMO. --Keitei (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps Wiki or a list of Wikis? Crazyswordsman 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just checked List of wikis, and Encyclopedia Dramatica is mentioned twice on there. So perhaps Encyclopaedia Dramatica should redirect to there? --Keitei (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no problem with that. Crazyswordsman 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also suggested the article be merged somewhere. The most significant part in there is the "April Furs Day", which relates to 4chan. Basically 4chan tricked people who posted furry art to post in this one area (instead of on their anonymous area) on April 1st and a few days later as an April fools day joke, their admins banned everyone who posted there. That was last year and I wonder if it will happen again. DyslexicEditor 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's significant? No offense, but I don't see the notability of the event you just described. --Keitei (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable.--Rataube 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only three namespace edits before this vote.

• Delete for the reasons stated by Keitei. Rangeley 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Every episode of the USA version of "The Office" gets its own article. I don't know why or how that falls into notability compared with arguments against this article. Or why every word I just wrote except "compared" (and "except") has its own article. DyslexicEditor 04:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the numerous reasons mentioned above. EricJ 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only one mainspace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Strong Delete Encyclopedia Dramatica is to words what goatse is to photos. Go through the random page button just once and you'll se what I mean. --Rdoger6424 04:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laughter I like "Encyclopedia Dramatica is to words what goatse is to photos" DyslexicEditor 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for proving my point that some wikipedians enjoy censoring everything they dislike, with a complete disregard for the official policy. ~ Mpontes 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we have goatse as a picture for Shock Sites? --Rdoger6424 20:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture of goatse is the offensive content by itself, while the potentially offensive content here is only linked and not hosted on Wikimedia servers. I fail to see your analogy? ~ Mpontes 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the article, the website is not notable. --Jannex 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Super-Strong Mega Delete The only thing it could possibly be notable for is sucking. --Savethemooses 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case, perhaps it could be redirected to vacuum cleaner? --carlb 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has less than ten namespace edits before this vote.SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN FurryiamIAM 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only one non-reverted namespace edit before this vote. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Belongs on bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Keystone23 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of this users previous edits are to one article, and they were all reverted. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in article history to indicate that contribs from this user (who has been here since January) have been a target for reversion. --carlb 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many of the wikis in the list of wikis do not have their own article. The website here is not notable enough. Its article is also a source for trolls (one admin even called another a troll in this vote article and they're both ED admins!!). The article is just a POV push by the site's editors to promote the site. Wikipedia is not an advertisement board. Jotunheim 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has less than ten name space edits before this vote, and most of those are from a revert war. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been here since January 1 and appears to be making valid contributions. Please do not bite the newcomers --carlb 16:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn per nominator. Also as user:Keitei point out above, Wikipedia is not a lot of things. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to make a comment about this stuff in general. I should say that there are millions, maybe even TEN millions, of sites out there, and just because a site has an Alexa rank of 50000, or even 200000, doesn't automatically make it non-notable. Many of the sites with <10000 Alexa ranks are mostly sites for corporations such as ESPN.com, adultswim.com, and things that have notability outside the web. I know what the Wikipedia guidline is (and, for the record, it is NOT policy), and I must say it's pretty flawed. Something can be very popular and referenced and still have low Alexa ranks. Starmen.net and SMBHQ, for example, have Alexa ranks of 200,000 approximately, and they're still some of the most popular sites on the web. Both sites have been referenced in MAJOR PUBLICATIONS, yet all people care about around here are numbers and statistics. And people say things like "delete: non-notable" without providing any evidence. Usually those who say it is notable provide evidence to back it up. A site does not have to fall under certain statistics to be notable.

• I'm not in favor of keeping this article; my vote is to merge it and clean it up, as I've said. Crazyswordsman 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Vanity. --Kennyisinvisible 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending third-party reliable verification. Notability is not a valid reason for deletion, but this is. Ziggurat 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (posted by Superm401 on behalf of Ziggurat)[reply]

• Comment as to notability, it's not in the article, and probably should be, but ED has gotten press coverage. It's been noted by the Washington Post that hacker groups attacking LiveJournal have used ED to claim responsibility. SchmuckyTheCat 05:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] is probably what you are thinking of. It doesn't mention ED and it wasn't in the Washington Post even if it did. kotepho 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above reasons. notable, covered in various 'real media'. Cleanup the article if necessary, however a badly written article is hardly a reason for deletion. Also this site has a much more favorable alexa traffic ranking than yellowikis, a spam haven project using the same mediawiki software, and that article seems to have been kept (voted without logging in before, fixing this now) --timecop 07:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable. Also, this is a bad faith nomination. Jmax- 07:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've had my difficulty with keeping this article NPOV a while ago.. Things are better.. Encyclopedia Dramatica is definitly (in my opinion) notable. I have no doubt in my mind about this. --Depakote 08:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Seems to be pretty quiet of late, and lacking in notability, maybe cut way back to a stub, similiar in length to the Yellowikis article mentioned above.--ElvisThePrince 09:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.