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 was Speedy keep, was speedy kept just hours ago here. Renom reason not valid. pschemp | talk 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Unsourced and unverified information. This article does not meet Wikipedia's standards and falls under the guidelines for articles for deletion. Stexe 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I find it extremely hypocritical that Encyclopædia Dramatica's article be deleted, yet this article persists. Both contain similar subject matter and unverified information. Either both should stay or both should be deleted. This shouldn't be a political argument on the content on the websites or notability -- both are extremely notable and mentioned on popular websites -- but rather their verifiability and response to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. Stexe 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - 2,910,000 google hits says it all, think the nominator just has some grievience with Encyclopedia Dramatica's deletion, at least he's created an Afd this time and not linked it to a previous one RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what have third-party sources said about Uncyclopedia? Anything? Milto LOL pia 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Uncyclopedia is featured on the bbc, the link can be found here RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks like user-added content, considering it was added by somebody calling themselves "Nerd 42=Teh Haxx0r and edited by a company that describes itself as "fake". Doesn't seem like a reliable source. — MichaelLinnear 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite completely and get rid of all the self-referential crap. Note that mentioning ED will get you banned 'round these parts. Note also that Uncyclopedia will never get deleted for reasons that parallel ED's deletion. All that aside, Uncyclopedia is well-known, even if there are sourcing problems. There has to be a third-party source out there that can provide info on Uncyclopedia, even if the article is cut down by a good portion. Milto LOL pia 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Afd page was not constructed properly, I have now fixed it and added the nominators signature from his first 'Strong delete' in order to fix the nomination. It is not catagorised RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Major Rewrite A huge amount of content does not meet policy as it is self referential or original research. This article should be alot smaller. However do not delete under any circumstance. — MichaelLinnear 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - please note User:Stexe is trying to influence other editors in this Afd which can be seen here RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • And let's assume good faith and believe that those other editors possessed the intellectual maturity to make their own decisions independent of User:Stexe. — MichaelLinnear 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that that comment came to me after I commented on his talk page after seeing the nomination[1]. Milto LOL pia 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It needs a completely rewrite, but you can't say it doesn't pass WP:N.--Wizardman 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Speedy Keep per here.--Wizardman 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD is not a request for rewrite. There is no deletion reason. This article has 34 inline citations. It has established notability. Uncyclopedia is fully reliable to state its own policies. ED and Uncyclopedia are two different websites. Is this so hard to grasp. --Keitei (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy nomming it is pursuing deletion though. ANd all process wonkery aside, the afd should stay open so that everyone realizes how much the article sucks. Milto LOL pia 00:49, 22 January 2007 (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.