Deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

Comment: as it seems to pass . There are articles that discuss it, in depth. The entire news9 MSN article is devoted to ED. It doesn't make sense to hold ED to a tougher notability standard than every other article simply because we don't like the site itself. Despite what the nom and delete votes say, if we have numerous incidental coverage in addition to at least one FULL RELIABLE SOURCE ARTICLE devoted to site it question, notability really should be considered established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as per nom, Collectonian and Sheffield Steel. Looking over the sourcing, only the Nine News source gives anything close to "substantial" coverage, and you need more under  or . Provide more sourcing, change my !vote/opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N)

Comment: The bias shown by some editors is horrifying. This site clearly meets , anyone saying otherwise is not fooling anyone. Please stop gaming the system by making absurd claims and try to back them up by throwing around links to WP:EPTBOP (Essay Pretending To Be Official Policy); it's rather annoying as I have to follow all the links only to find out it's an essay (not policy, not even a recommendation) that is only loosely related to the subject at hand. |Wikipedia is not censored for anyone, no matter how offensive the subject might be for you and me. Deleting Encyclopedia Dramatica's article won't magically remove ED from the Internet. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia with the sum of all human knowledge; removing content just because the large majority of Wikipedia's editors strongly dislikes the subject in question is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery out of this project's goals. I'd like to point out that Wikipedia projects in other languages have no problems whatsoever with keeping an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, there are never any "trolls" disrupting the article. In fact, most of the "disruptions" this article suffers from consist of clear wikigaming (removing sources, starting disputes over trivial matters, etc) from people who, for some reason, can't sleep at night as long as we keep a completely innocuous article on some website popular among some Internet subculutures. Please, grow up. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, you don't win experience points every time you get an article you hate deleted. On another note, I'd also like to point out that this isn't the 2nd nomination for this article, it's the 5th. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica|First nomination, (delete) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopædia_Dramatica|second nomination (keep), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica|third nomination (no consensus, keep), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopædia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination)|fourth nomination (delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOT)

Comment: As stated a few times above, fails . Far more trouble than it is worth, for such a marginal article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Gee, so if ED makes enough articles on editors, nobody gets to vote? That isn't what our  policy is about, anyway
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: notable, higher alexa rank than other websites that have wikipedia articles. dont let past problems between wikipedia and encyclopedia dramatica stand in the way of . its notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: WP:N|Notability and |WEB are guidelines, not stuff set in stone. Please stop the insanity. Also, there is an inevitability argument. You know if this is deleted today, this article is going to be here eventually, so might as well be now. What difference does it make
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Has been mentioned in a wide variety of news outlets including ''The New York Times''.  At some points in the development of the current version of the article, the reference list was actually nearly as long, or maybe longer, than the article itself.  Its attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians are utterly irrelevant;  requires that we cover those who hate us, and/or that we hate, in an evenhanded manner regardless.  Opposition to this article seems based more on fear and loathing than on logic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Please explain how the site fails  and . It has a higher Alexa rating than Uncyclopedia. The article isn't an advert in any way, refering to the site as "coarse, offensive, and frequently obscene" (something which would never be allowed in many articles) And by the way, the fact that the site attacks Wikipedians is irrelevant, as  isn't policy, and doesn't preclude Wikipedia's goal to be an embodiment of all human knowledge. We don't delete the article on Al-Quaida because it gives unwanted attention to terrorists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:WEB||WP:DENY)

Comment: how on earth does this site pass  ? Fails criteria 2 (no awards for either the site or its content), Fails criteria 3 (it's not carried independently by a respected medium) and , Fails the remaining criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: seriously, I just walked in on this article and saw this total baaawwwfest. I've seen a lot more insignificant and outright irrelevant crap keep a steady article - per countless numbers of people listed, this stinks of  and there are a good lot of people (not naming names, though a majority of them ARE deleters) that should just be ashamed of themselves for the immaturity displayed here. Special:Contributions/64.81.169.20|64.81.169.20
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: You may not |like it, but surprisingly the article is well-sourced, and states WHY the site is notable. ED might slam Wikipedia, and honestly I really don't care one way or another if it does, but per  this article passes those criteria and quite frankly, that's all I'm looking at
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:WEB)

Comment: this article just passed DRV with a fairly strong consensus to recreate. AfDing it within a week of this occurring simply creates 'drahmaz!!!111'; some of the 'delete' arguments have a definite whiff of . Yes, ED attacks Wikipedia and just about anything else it can find, but that doesn't mean that it should be denied an article. The article is well sourced, with mentions in mainstream media. Can we please come to at least a semblance of a conclusion on this for the sake of everyone's sanity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Meets  at this point. In order to be a neutral encyclopedia we cannot remove articles simply because they involve topics we don't like or are difficult to maintain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Sourced, lots of Google hits, well written article and although I hate to invoke 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAP)

Comment: While my personal opinion on this particular website is that it could just as well be blasted to kingdom come (I would not mind to be the one to pull the trigger), it doesnt change the fact that it seems to have received sufficient media coverage to comply to eb. In each and every case deleting this article would meet delete consensus, this consensus would then apply to a major share of the websites that i have allowed to excist either on the fact that they may or seem to be notable, or because there is not enough reason to press a delete. Also, a lot of the DELETE editors seem to take personal offence from the website, which makes it slightly an  topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:IHATEIT)

Comment: The article is well-sourced and seems to meet all applicable standards.  is no reason to delete, especially when the exercise of free speech is what people don't like
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Has more than trivial coverage in most of the sources, and is the subject of one of them.  |IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument in favor of deletion.  NPOV must be restored, and we ''have'' to stop this knee-jerk reactionism to do so.  That means no more covering it up and hiding it, which is against everything we're for.  The selfish actions of a few notable editors who happen to have pages on ED should NOT be able to be fuel for keep its recreation from happening
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Now that a second inarguably non-trivial source has been found, any  argument is rendered moot. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 Non-trivial Source 1 http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 Non-trivial Source 2. Yes they are not feature length, but both meet guidelines set out at  for being non-trivial. And since two (2) is "multiple" - this article meets criteria #1 of the  guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Notability and Web are only interpretations of erifiability and eliable sources, which this article demonstrates and comply with. I would like to '''comment''' also on the large number of S present (as well as the minor  issue), and hope that the closing administrator takes these into account
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:R||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: The scope of the sources looks just fine to me. Not all of them are directly about ED, but there is enough here to indicate that it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Sufficiently sourced, and appears to have non-trivial coverage in the so-called Real World - In my opinion, it satisfies ; even if it still could be somewhat better, it's still better than it was before. "May attack Wikipedians" argument is utter rubbish, as seen so many times before; Wikipedia's goal is neutrality, and I'd say that if the idea is to cover topics neutrally without opinionated comments, the other side of the coin would be to not limit ''inclusion'' to Wikipedia based on opinions, either; otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles like ''(Insert blatant unfurling if the Godwin Flag)'' neo-Nazism, because it happens to cover a topic that may promote hate toward a group of people. If we delete arguments based on that alone, where would you draw a line? Let's let go of the tiresome drama and let's quit trying to kill this article because of politics. The bottom line is this, no matter how you bake the cake: we set the bar somewhere and this thing narrowly leaps above it. If this thing gets deleted, I see it as a victory for evil wikilawyering of most foul kind, not as a victory for interpreting Wikipedia's content guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The subject meets notability and verifiability standards as well as the  inclusion guidelines by extensive coverage through multiple and reliable third party publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: We are not in the business of deciding what might or might not interest Wikipedia's readers nor should we delete it because it will be an article that'll cause a "huge headache". It's as notable as the all those |high schools and highways so I don't see how we can claim to be a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia when this article keeps getting deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Trivial mentions may satisfy |verifiability but they do not demonstrate |notability. In other words, based on the sources shown, it is possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this subject; that does not necessarily mean that we ''should'' do so. Questions of who does / doesn't like the site, or want the article deleted, serve only to distract from the question of notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: Tentatively meets |notability guidelines, seems to have the potential to moreso.  Well put-together and cited, what's all the up-in-arms about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Collectonian regarding the sourcing issue: fails .  Anything Wikipedia-related tends to receive enhanced attention in Wikipedia discussions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: What a surprise, violations of  on this AfD. Care to rat them out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: The ninemsn article is one step toward satisfying . The other sources listed are questionable, as most of them only mention ED in passing. However, ED is a notorious website with wide recognition across the internet, and I'm sure at some point down the road it will receive more coverage in reliable sources. WP is not a |crystal ball, so it might be better to wait for more sourcing before creating this article again. On the other side of the coin, I have to cry foul at nominating a fully-protected article for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Multiple sources show a breadth, if not depth, of coverage that indicate but not conclusively demonstrate the subject is notable. Procedurally, I'm disturbed by an AfD on a protected article, preventing  from working
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a reason to delete. Its sourced and passes . This nom skirts quite close to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:POINT)

Comment: meets , namely criteria 1 ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself").  The ''North Adams Transcript'' (look it up http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NATB&p_theme=natb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=112168DD0605BF80&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM here, but you need to pay), ninemsn, ''Wired'' and Gawker articles are all non-trivial, at the very least. Please don't speedy close this AFD, allow the discussion to runs its course so nobody can complain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: If the site disappeared tomorrow I would care less, but I honestly believe the repetitive coverage this website has received rises well above  standards, which aren't low by any means
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I'm sorry, but since when has NPOV been thrown out of the window?  specifically states that articles shouldn't be deleted simply because it's been decided that nobody likes it. ED is notable, it's been featured in news articles, and it's got more than enough sources compared to many other articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound Uncivil here, but if we start censoring just because we don't like ED, then we're going to have to start censoring a lot of other things that editors do not like. Also see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IHATEIT||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Notable, NPOV and multiple coverage by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This smacks of .  Clearly a notable web site, per  and cited sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails , as demonstrated above. There isn't a whole lot more to say
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails . Not need for non trivial mentions in reliable printed sources. Unless more come up, delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: edit conflict x2), as the one who cleaned up the sources earlier today, almost every source there only mentions Dramatica in passing. Two just define it. I don't think Fortuny's use of the site automatically conveys notability on it, only on himself. If he'd done the same on his personal blog, we wouldn't be allowing an article on that blog. Unless someone can produce some true, significant coverage, I just don't see how this site meets , and why we should have an article on a site that's blacklisted from even having its URL posted anywhere. And, as a side note, I have no idea if ED is an attack site or not, never go to it and have never really heard of it before today. So I'm basing my comments purely on the article and its sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)