Deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica (5th nomination)

Comment: whether one likes the views represented by the article or not, and whether one agrees with the subject of the article or not it passed . It has received quite a bit of independent coverage so I do not see a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and |SNOW close. Why are we here again
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: and speedy close, easily meets . Why would we not want to give our readers useful information about something frequently mentioned in news stories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: stop wasting afd's time with nominations like this. The article clearly shows notability beyond any reasonable doubt. |Not liking it is still not a valid deletion rationale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: like it or not, it meets our notability guideline, as well as the all-important |verifiability.  They're for real and an important part of internet culture -- and they're positively cultured compared to 4chan.  (Yeah, I admit it, I get a laugh there now and then myself, even if their subliterate repetition of "gay" "lulz" "faggot" as well as certain other once-shocking words is tedious to the point it makes a literate visitor want to slit his wrists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)