Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:17, 19 July 2006

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 (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls 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) 01:23, 19 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)
    • Animorphs is about a series of nationally published books (not to mention toyline and television series), and Last House on the Left is about a nationally released film that has had significant impact upon horror film studies, as well as being produced by one of horror's foremost directors, Wes Craven. Your other examples are more apt, but those two are quite silly comparisons.--SB | T 06:21, 19 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)
        • Please take note that the Alexa traffic ranking of Wikitruth, a purely anti-Misplaced Pages site, is 74,000ish. ED is 24,000th ranking. Which is more notable thus? rootology 06:24, 19 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)
  • Delete. This is only here to tell people about the emotic and vain world of LiveJournal, and MySpace. I do not believe Misplaced Pages is for whining, so do it at Encyclop*dia Dramatica next time. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:44, 19 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)

• keep-The website is notable.

• • • 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)
  • Keep Articles AfD and edits are clearly being made in bad faith. --Weevlos 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. --Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Karwynn. --Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Misplaced Pages must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) (→Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. (→Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#_note-alexarank 24,000th rank per Alexa. rootology 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. --Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Where's the bad faith? I strongly encourage you to assume good faith. (→Netscott) 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? (→Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? (→Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. (→Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
              • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. (→Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. (→Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. (→Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                          • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                            • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). (→Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                              • Then you assume wrongly, and you fail to act in good faith. That's no longer my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Helllllooo redundancy!!! (→Netscott) 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's amusing how any counter-point to deletion is met with veracity from people opposed to the article, but my call for assuruance that group concensus will be honored is ignored. rootology 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Banes 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  "Speedy delete per nom"? On an AfD page? Obviously the nom didn't think it was a speedy. Speedy delete cannot be "per" anything but a speedy criterion. -GTBacchus 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong delete. The site simply isnt notable enough, in fact, "Themisfitishere", "Leeroy Jenkins" and that sort of thing are probably more notable yet often deleted. People often think that because an article get's nominated for deletion lots of times and is well known within wikipedia (Wikitruth for example), means it may be notable. I often make this mistake myself. Vanity article too. Don't really need to give these kids any more publicity (not that that is a deletion criteria of course :) ). -- Banes 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable. Criticism of Misplaced Pages isn't a factor when considering whether or not an article should be kept. 209.167.60.170 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  That's correct, criticism of Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a factor, and those bringing it up should drop that angle like a bad habit. This article needs to be deleted, not because ED criticizes WP, but because it's a load of original research with no reliable sourcing for anything. -GTBacchus 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless more crtiable sources are found. Jaranda 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a bunch of original research about a website that no independent reliable source has ever seen fit to say two words about. Once ED attracts independent attention from reputable publishers, then whatever they say about it can be used as the basis for an article. Until then, no. -GTBacchus 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per rootology. (edit conflict) This is not an attack article, and if a vandal adds defamatory comments to this or any other page the correct action is to remove said comments promptly and enable semi-protection, if necessary. Silensor 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Fortunately, attack article isn't a reason to delete according to anyone sane. Do you have any reply to the whole "original research, no reliable sources" argument? -71.212.73.43 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This is the user's first edit. east.718 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, not verifiable, original resarch issues, etc --Pilotguy 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article attempts to support its own existance with dubious claims of the notablity of the subject. For instance, just because the ED website says they have 8,000 users doesn't make it so. --rogerd 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This info on the article is as verifiable by third parties as is WP's own http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Statistics. rootology 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Notice that isn't a Misplaced Pages article, and nobody claims that Special:Statistics passes WP:V
      • Does the rest of the front page pass it? Maybe this should be removed from the front page. Double standard? rootology 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ONLY if unverified, and self-serving statements are removed (ie: Rogerd's point about the number of users. Can that be proven?) Resolute 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known site. Alexa rank of 24462 when I checked just now. The content of the page can sure be fixed up, but there should be a WP entry about this site. -- Ch'marr 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a well known website with a high Alexa ranking relative to most all other wikis we cover. Yamaguchi先生 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Alexa rankings don't impress me. --InkSplotch 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not an attack article, though this may be an attack VfD. Stanfordandson 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Cool, so it's not an attack article. Do you have any good reason that we should ignore WP:V and WP:NOR, because those are the policies that I actually see entering into this decision, while the whole idea about whether it's an attack article or not seems to me like a really obvious red herring? -GTBacchus 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regretful Delete. I expected to want to keep it, but after I took a look, I don't see evidence of notability or verifiable sources. If those can be found later, I'd have no objection if it were recreated. -Hit bull, win steak 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not again. KEEP Just give it up, enough is enough. How many times is this article going to be AfD'd? Keep per User:Karwynn's opinion above.--Azathar 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per rootology. I agree that this is a bad faith nom.--Anchoress 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just as non-notable as ever. --InShaneee 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebecca 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Travb (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire per nom, per TS (and I'd like to note that users of the site placed stupidly nonsensical attack templates on my userpage there just after I created an account - not a valid deletion reason but should be mentioned anyway). — Nathan _{/ 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete - per nom, this makes no sense to keep it -- Tawker 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a parody wiki relevant to internet culture and, more specifically, the LiveJournal culture. High Alexa ranking and many google hits. Keep, Keep, Keep. Jogabbeyjr 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on evidence of premeditated plans to destroy the article: ( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Related evidence to Hardvice's post. Edit history of main admins opposed to article, showing determined attempt to disassemble article without proper discusssion (despite being asked for it by editors) almost as soon as it was unprotected on 7/17/06:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=MONGO
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hipocrite
  • Also, open bias complaint on them here for this issue:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details rootology 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment