Deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

Comment: One, the article doesn't seem to have a POV to me, and two, one look at the page makes it obvious to me that it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Actually, ED is in 2,459, according to Alexa. XD Seriously, I believe this AfD was done in bad faith, and is an excuse for the nominator to say |I don't like it. As for the lack of a |neutral point of view, I recommend |fixing the problem
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NPOV||WP:BOLD)

Comment: I'm not totally keen on the site myself, given that I've a page there and I'd not lose sleep if the entire site disappeared up its own .. well, y'know - but for the meantime the fact is that it easily meets . It's been cited in enough sources already (SFGate being one that immediately comes to mind). But yeah, keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: notable enough. If you don't like the look of it |sort it out. There are lots of badly-written articles on notable topics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: Haven't we gone through this already? There are a few issues with the prose, but sources such as http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 this have me convinced that the site meets . Also, the involvement with Jason Fortuny is a notable part of the site's history, as is the involvement with Anonymous and Project Chanology. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part, though at the same time a little surprised that this showed up for AfD ''again
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)