Deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

Comment: I already added my !vote above, but I wanted to add another point. While I think we can reach a good decision based on the existence of multiple nontrivial sources (and I think both the ninemsn and gawker articles count as such), I think that sort of beancounting misses the point. There are two things we should be thinking about that our guidelines and policies are intended to address: is it possible to write a nontrivial and |fully verifiable article about the subject, and is the subject one of sufficient prominence that it's worth our while devoting space to it? Clearly, it is possible to write a decent article — I haven't seen anyone here arguing, as often happens at other AfDs, that the article is full of unsourceable |original research. And as for, is it a subject of sufficient prominence? Has any Wikipedian ''not'' heard of it? And the Alexa ranks are meaningful for answering this sort of question, too, I think. So I think counting sources and carefully assessing which are trivial and which are nontrivial amounts to wikilawyering when a step back and a look at the bigger picture makes the decision clear
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: There seem to be only three types of argument against this article; noteworthiness, a perceived lack of sources, and .  Now, the first two would be worth debate if they were occurring on their own, but they are both only occurring in combination with .  In fact, the very strength of the opposition to having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the fact that an AfD is filled every time someone tries to add an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is in and of itself proof of the significance of Encyclopedia Dramatica.  All deleting the article accomplishes is giving the  folks at Encyclopedia Dramatica more ammunition to claim that we are biased against them, and that we are letting that bias subvert our values
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Thoroughly cited; it would be a violation of  to pretend it doesn't exist, and despite the hassles we've had with it, we cover much worse. I don't believe in the "borderline notability means we get to toss neutrality out the window and decide on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT" style arguments for deleting it, and I don't believe that its notability is as borderline as proponents of that argument make out. And as we've just hashed all this out at DRV I don't see what is to be accomplished from doing it all again so soon, so I'm tempted to advocate not just a keep but a speedy keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: WP:WEB|Notable. Can we please go at least a month or two without having to slog through this tired old discussion? At a certain point, constantly AFDing or DRVing the same article become blatant |pointy disruption
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per the ninemsn article.  Although that's only one ''about'' the website, there are certainly a lot of other sources that discuss it somewhat, and I think that's quite sufficient.  In any case,  is a guideline, not policy --  is the real policy, and there is certainly enough reliable material here to maintain an article, even if it would be a short one.  OT#PAPER, folks: if the topic can be written about reliably, and it is ''slightly'' less important than some would like, there just isn't a compelling case to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: The sourcing is quite decent, meeting / to reasonable standard, and in a broader sense notability is fairly obvious (considering traffic statistics,  and so forth). I certainly concur with the spirit of , but nuking articles in direct response to misconduct doesn't deny recognition -- it affords it, while simultaneously setting a very bad precedent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:SET||WP:DENY)

Comment: fails . The current references are not enough to demonstrate notability; several are passing mentions or are from sources that fail  requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: per my nom. Sadly, those arguing for the value of material that is substandard, inadequate and encyclopedia|unencyclopedic and suggesting that such articles be kept regardless of those facts damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia. Unfortunatly Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. ''The depth of coverage of the subject by the source '''must''' be considered.'' which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Content that hat Wikipedia is not|does not belong in an ikipedia is an encyclopedia|encyclopedia is removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:W)