Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6

Zooped (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Zooped is a social networking similar to Orkut or Myspace.I first added images which where actually advetisements and then found out that it was against the rules of Wikipedia.Then i deleted the images and created the artciles on the basis of how other articles on social networking sites where created.Can anyone tell me the procedure to add Zooped on Wikipedia again and also the changes to be made in the article i posted

• The last version of the article created just goes through the features of the website. Having an article that just covers its features makes the article basically an advert for the website. In order for an article on Zooped to be accepted would suggest that a user space version of the article be created (for instance at User:The Ruler496/Zooped) which is written in a neutral point of view and has reliable secondary sources establishing notability (suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (web) to show our notability guidelines for websites). So endorse deletion until a user space version has been produced. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Looking at the last version it was pretty clearly an ad, with no particular notbility stated, adlike tone, and lots and lots of links to the Zooped site. If undeleted, it would probably last a minute or two before being G11 speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion written like an advertisement (G11) and contained no assertion of significance (A7). Should not be undeleted until we can see a decent draft. Hut 8.5 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.zooped.com, Multiple accounts to re spam this advert, it is apparent that the accounts and IP are only using Wikipedia for Advertising and for self-promotion. --Hu12 (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Usual G11 junk, and has no assertion of notability. Jmlk17 09:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Spam is still spam...Cleo123 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Starblind. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Bjarne Berg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable

• Overturn and list Article was speedy deleted as a bio that does not assert importance (A7). However the intro stated 'is a professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Lenoir Rhyne College in North Carolina and is an internationally recognized expert in SAP Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence.' This seems to me to be a clear assertion of importance. Now there are conflict of interest problems (User:Bberg009 created the article) and the article is pretty poor (but it was only about 10 minutes after creation when it was deleted) but there is enough there to suggest having an AFD to see if the article can be improved and reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Davewild. In all likelihood articles like this are a lost cause, but any particular instance might be an exception, and A7 was not met. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD (where it will almost certainly be deleted). Speedy was not intended for cases like this, and anyway a single reasonable objection should generally be sufficient for moving an article from speedy to AfD. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list leaving aside the question of notability, and the quality of the article, it did assert significance. No harm in sending this to AfD. Hut 8.5 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Notability is asserted. Given a chance, the article might be properly developed and sourced. Cleo123 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Notability is quite clearly asserted in the intro. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

USERSPACE DRAFT HERE

Two months ago this article underwent a deletion review that was speedy closed for having "insufficient new information". In this deletion review I will prove that ED is as notable if not more than 4chan, which is certainly notable enough to survive deletion.

The 4chan article and the ED article I rewrote which was speedy deleted are remarkably similar in sources. Both rely on sources which do not focus on the website in question but mention it in passing. Nevertheless, the fact that 4chan has not gained itself a special feature in some magazine does not make it non-notable. The same goes for ED.

Ignoring the references which source 4chan itself or blog comments, here are the sources which mention 4chan in passing as an Internet community:

1. Toronto Star (lolcats)
2. Daily Pennsylvanian (lolcats)
3. Wired (lolcats)
4. InternetNews.com (bomb threat)
5. Interview with Tay Zonday on HHNLive.com
6. CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. (Tay Zonday)
7. HeraldSun (bomb threat)
8. National Post (calls it an "underground hacking website")
9. 2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In contrast, here are the sources in the ED article I wrote which reference ED in passing as an Internet community:

1. San Francisco Chronicle
2. Warren's Washington Internet Daily
3. Chicago Tribune
4. North Adams Transcript
5. New York Times Magazine
6. The Observer
7. Maclean's
8. Wired
9. Nu.nl
10. 2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In addition to all this, an article on Gawker, an oft-cited blog, puts 4chan, ED, and Something Awful side-by-side.

Based only on these references, and not making wishy-washy personal judgments, ED is clearly as notable as 4chan if not more. Any attempts to disprove this should be based on outside sources and not on your personal opinion. Shii (tock) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Permit Recreation. This article is being forced into sourcing much more rigorous than most of what already passes WP:WEB. It's time to give it a new chance. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question: What new non trivial third party coverage has ED received since the last time we reviewed its deletion? WjBscribe 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It was mentioned on television and on several notable blogs (blogs with their own Wikipedia articles) in connection with Project Chanology. Shii (tock) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Mentioned"? I'm not convinced with can write an article about something that has simply been mentioned, no matter how frequently. Has any reliable third part source every written about Encyclopedia Dramatica? WjBscribe 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The sources are not just mentioned. See the Gawker article for example which is about ED. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Is Gawker.com a reliable source? I confess I've never heard about it before and reading our article about it - a blog based in New York City that bills itself as "The source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip" - I'm not sure its really what I'm looking. From quickly perusing the site, it seems to me that if we had article about everything they write about our inclusion criteria would be rather stretched. WjBscribe 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Gawker is a major website with editorial oversight; that makes it a reliable source. As to the stretching content... there's nothing wrong with articles about pop culture topics. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, sources do not equate to notability. If you search my name in Google, you'll find sources. Doesn't make me notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This comment is not a valid argument and should be discounted. Have you been mentioned in as many print sources as another deletion-tested article on Wikipedia? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, can we get links to all of these sources? I can't evaluate them without it. And before you ask, if 4chan was up for deletion for the same reasons, yes, I would be in favor of its removal. However, as others have mentioned, the existence of one article does not beg for the existence of another. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It needs more than references "in passing." It needs to be the subject of sources. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If no one could produce a couple reliable sources that it was the subject of? Yes. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existnce of similar articles is irrelvant to this discussion. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation There is now enough . the Gawker item cited is a usable source for notability for websites. I think shii is correct that we would accept this for anything else. DGG (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Every supposed ED "source" I've ever seen has been either a blog (or similar unreliable source), or just a trivial/passing mention... indeed some of them didn't mention it at all. Come back when you have genuine non-trivial reliable sources, and preferably a workable userspace draft to show us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you vote to delete 4chan? Here is my userspace draft: User:Shii/ED Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• permit recreation with given draft We finally have a version of this that is well-sourced and decently written. We will of course need to watch the article carefully but this does at this point appear to meet WP:WEB. The Gawker cite pushes it over. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion. This has been requested a billion times. You're not getting on the billion-and-first. You are very lucky you haven't been banned. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has been requested many times. However, they now have content that seems to me at least to meet WP:WEB. The reason we've repeatedly rejected it was because it didn't meet our content policies. Now it does. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hardly. Running around in a mask yelling "Hail Xenu!" does not make notability. Besides, I'm not convinced any of the sources are significant coverage. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Notability isn't determined by what we personally think should be notable. It is determined by the presence of multiple, independent reliable sources. So let's take a look at those. Why for example is the Gawker reference not significant coverage? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not covering ED, it's covering the protests. It's a gossip rag by admission anyway, and since when have we allowed those to be used as sources? Will ^(talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
          • • Um, did you read the same article I read? the article doesn't talk about the protests at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes. It's primarily about the protests (or rather, the people behind them), not ED. By that line of reasoning, should /b/ have their own article? Will ^(talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Help me out here. The article 1) doesn't mention the protests and 2) doesn't mention scientology and 3) discussed ED in detail. How is that an article about the protests? Under that logic we can't have an article on Jimbo Wales since any article about him is really just about Wikipedia and Wikimedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • If Jimbo wasn't one of the world's most influential people (Time 2006), then yes. In actual fact, if he wasn't voted into that list, I would get it merged in a heartbeat. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "You are very lucky you haven't been banned." Uh, hello random dude. I have been editing Wikipedia in 2002 and I became an admin in 2004. Now, note that no argument against recreation has yet addressed my original post. My post clearly demonstrates that ED is as notable as 4chan. The responses have judged the 4chan references to be better than the ED references, without explaining why, or call for the debate to be closed without even explaining why. This knee-jerk reaction is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Everyone who has requested ED at DRV has been banned. As I said, you're very lucky, even if you are an admin. Will ^(talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This is a very interesting idea of yours. Someone should be banned for pointing out a double standard? Maybe you should ban User:Floaterfluss, he is the most recent to propose and does not seem to have met your invented rule yet. Shii (tock) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Will, your instinctive assumption of bad faith is disruptive, please chill. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It's trolling. Pure and simple. Will ^(talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
          • It isn't trolling.Shii is a well-respected editor who has made a good-faith attempt to write an article about a subject which now appears to meet our notability standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
            • It normally is, though. Shii's reputation is the only thing that's stopping him from getting banned. Will ^(talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, that and the fact that he's done nothing wrong. I might offer a discussion of AGF, our blocking policy (which, umm, doesn't quite call for a ban in situations as this), and the definitions of disruption and trolling, but you, as a longtime editor, are surely acquainted with each of those, and so I would instead suggest that, since you, in view of your relationship with ED, are (rightly or wrongly) rather passionate about the issue and have in the past had some difficulty remaining civil in discussions about ED, you, having made your views on the matter clear, might do well to take a few steps back from the situation whilst others in the community weigh in. Joe 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Unlike Will I will lay my biases out on the table. I am an admin for ED. I also edit Wikipedia from time to time in a serious manner under various sockpuppets, ie: not vandalism. The only reason I use multiple socks is due to the obvious and unprofessional bias shown towards anyone having anything to do with ED on wikipedia, and the quick manner in which they are handed out perma bans as a matter of course. I think the ideal of the wiki format is an amazing concept, and something that has by in large greatly improved the quality of the internet in general. The thing is, Wikipedia is in its ultimate conception is supposed to be a repository for general knowledge, and the fact that the internal politics of this Wiki is interfering with the creation of a legitimate article that is properly sourced only because you personally dislike it is a betrayal of the very founding principals Wikipedia is based on. Will has an obvious bias in regards to the creation of this article due to his treatment at ED with the creation of his own article (search for Sceptre), and should recuse himself from any arbitration matters concerning this article if he wishes to maintain the neutrality that we all try and maintain within the Wikipedia project. Doing otherwise would be dishonest. This is not something that is going to go away simply because you wish it would, whatever your feelings towards ED are (even my own as a sysop sometimes oscillate between admiration and disgust), the fact that it has become and is notable with legitimate references makes it a valid candidate for its own article. I would like to point out that Will's nomination for a user space article for deletion was in flagrant violation of good faith, it's only a sandbox man. I would not be surprised if this IP gets the ol' perma-ban treatment, and that's fine, I'm not trying to hide or unduly influence anything. I am as a matter of course and good faith recusing myself from any votes that come up for the deletion or keeping of this article. In any case, evading a ban on Wikipedia is hardly the most difficult thing in the world. So knock yourself out Will if you really believe that banning everyone who has anything to do with ED will make Wikipedia a better place. I came here to comment on this issue in good faith, and at least let the rest of the Wikipedia community hear another view point, from which I hope they can draw an informed opinion whether it be for or against my personal viewpoint. I am not here to troll anyone, so please do not take this comment as such. Regards, DLB (I tried to direct link to my user page on ED for my sig but apparently ED is blacklisted as a spam site for links, go figure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.212.107 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • I think the article over there about Sceptre, who is a minor, says all that needs to be said about ED. Corvus cornix_talk 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • While you may find it in bad taste, that does not discount ED as being a legitimate subject for an article. --71.135.168.43 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it may be worthwhile to point out that Will has been described as "regularaly disrupting the progress of closely-related" Anonymous (group) (per GA-assessment of Project Chanology. As stated there, there may be a COI. DigitalC (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Gah, GNAA's record will soon fall! Keep deleted, all sources are quite trivial. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And this is not a vote. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is against false analogies, not genuine ones, which are perfectly logical. If there is, in fact, other crap -- which is crap -- then compares this to that, means both articles are still crap. So, it is logical to argue that if WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies, either Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are both crap or neither are. If not, why do you dispute this analogy? Please cite an actual argument. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • WP:NOTAGAIN. I'm not making a fallacious argument. These are the same kind of website and we follow the same WP:WEB rules for both. Clearly both sites have the same level of notability. You have not addressed my point and neither has anyone else arguing against recreation. Shii (tock) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • "These are the same kind of website" - Did you not read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Unless they are the same website, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
          • "Other crap exists" is not the same as "other equivalent crap was kept in AFDs" though.Zocky | picture popups 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes it is, we DO NOT evaluate the merits of an article based on other articles. Why is this so hard to understand? Mr.Z-man 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Not according to official policy, Mr Z-Man, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so such analogies are fairly logical, if they work. Uncyclopedia, Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikiality, and various wikis on Wikia are all about the same in terms of content and notability. If the analogy makes sense, then who cares about the policy? Wikipedia policy doesn't trump reason. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Try actually reading what the page you're linking to all the time says. "We DO NOT evaluate the merits of an article based on other articles" ain't it. Zocky | picture popups 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

                I don't know how to respond to that except, yes it does. To copy a chunk of it:

• • • • • • • • • How is that not the same as suggesting this should get an article because 4chan et al have articles? @Zenwhat: Wikipedia isn't a bureacracy, but I've seen no compelling reason to ignore the rules in this case. I should also note that Wikiality is a redirect to a section of another article and very few Wikia wikis have articles. Looking at Uncyclopedia's references, there is at least two articles that are written solely about the site. The only thing Conservapedia really has in common is the wiki software but its been written about in numerous articles. ED's references are all, by the nominator's statement, only passing mentions, that's never been enough for WP:N. I (under my real name, and possibly under my wiki pseudonym) have passing mentions in reliable sources (a newspaper and an academic journal), do I get an article? Mr.Z-man 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Quoting from there: "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used." So, caution should be used even for that argument, but the argument itself can be effective. As the page says, "other crap exists" is a weak argument because creating other crap is trivial. Similar articles being kept at AfD is a completely different thing. The AfD debates on the create standard practice and therefore policy, and using them in debates about articles of the same kind is a perfectly legitimate argument. Zocky | picture popups 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Permit recreation per JoshuaZ. Of course, it's possible that he and I, et al., are falling for an individual who, having edited regularly for nearly four years and having, for one, started nearly 100 articles, has elected to spend time aggregating sources and setting forth a reasonable argument for our permitting recreation in an effort to troll us, but I think I'll take my chances. Joe 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• No thanks. Canonical "crap off teh internets", notwithstanding the good faith of the requester. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Alas, if Wikipedia does not describe this website accurately, Internet users will be forced to go to other sites which describe it inaccurately. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: it can cover pioneering and difficult to understand topics such as Internet culture as long as we follow the basic verification requirement, which my userspace article clearly passes. Shii (tock) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Alas? Feh. If they want to know about ED, they can find it trivially easily via Google and the About page will tell them all they need to know. According to The Economist what Wikipedia actually needs is articles on the leaders of the Solidarity movement, not this septic tank of a website. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Permit recreation - appears to finally have the coverage required for WP:WEB Viridae^Talk 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per demon. --Kbdank71 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Demon did not address my point and neither did you. Shii (tock) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation per Shii. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Not enthusiastic about the whole idea of recreation. I think it's unwise to ignore the fact that ED is essentially a trolling site, which is why WP hates it, whereas 4chan actually contains some substantive content. That being said, I can't refute the notability claims put forth by Shii. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I can see lots of sources which mention ED in passing - "such-and-such was posted at ED", "look at ED for more information" - but no substantial content about the site itself. WP:N requires that coverage should address the subject in detail. Hut 8.5 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - that's irrelevant. Hut 8.5 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That piece of text explicitly says that "other crap exists" is not an argument because it's easy to create other crap, and then goes on to discuss how previous AfDs on similar articles are a valid argument (which still needs to be taken with caution). In this case, the argument is previous AfDs on similar articles, not mere existence of other articles, so your reply doesn't apply. Zocky | picture popups 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation with given draft - vulgar, often childish, pointed and rude to Wikipedia does not equate to an argument on notability, and this site seems well attested as notable; I'd buy notability for it. However it must be neutral to a high standard (and focussing on the site more than its "gags"), since there will be the obvious incentive to some on the net to "improve" it to a list of funnies. But then again they try that with politics, sexuality and many other topics, which we handle. One thing on your draft - lose the sentence Wiki articles at Encyclopedia Dramatica criticize Myspace as well as Wikipedia and its administrators... a site that citicizes 1000 things should not have "us" highlighted as the "they criticize us!", as if thats special, unless it really is notable. They criticize other things more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • in regard to just that sentence yes but the reliable sources seem to care about their criticism of us not as much other things. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"X says Y" then..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Z-Man. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see a reliable source in the bunch:
  • sfgate - trivial mention.
  • Warren's Washington Internet Daily - I don't know what this is, but there's no link to it, so I can't judge its usefulness.
  • MyCrimeSpace - a blog
  • Gawker.com - one brief paragragph, not enough to build an article about.
  • Chicago Tribune - no link, so I can't judge the usefulness of the article.
  • North Adams Transcript - no link, so I can't judge the usefulness of the article.
  • New York Times magazine - one sentence.
  • The Observer - not about ED, but about a meme.
  • Alternet - one sentence.
  • Austinist - not an article, just a link to ED's site.
  • Londonist - one sentence which links to ED's site.
  • Youtube is not a reliable source.
  • Nu.nl - in Dutch, but there's only one sentence there.
  • Wired - one sentence, a phrase defined, not about ED.
  • Washington Post - one sentence, mentioned in a comment, not in the article.
  • Maclean's - about Jason Fortuny, the only mention of ED is a link to their site.
    • Come up with some reliable sources in which ED is the main focus of the article (multiple sources, not just one), and we can talk again. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because you can't follow a link to a source doesn't mean it's not a useful source. Ask your academic institution how to use NewsBank. Shii (tock) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Provide a reliable source and we won't have this discussion. If the unlinked "sources" are as unreliable as the linked ones, we're not getting anywhere. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm having trouble understanding the above. The Gawker source is substantial (it may be short but it gives lots of details). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It's three sentences, none of them useful for creating an article. What does The Wikipedia of obscure Internet memes, particularly those on the sites that follow. ED is run like Wikipedia, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about most Internet memes it covers. However net-savvy you are, ED is edgier, and it will perform 2 girls 1 cup on you to prove it say that is article-worthy? Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It isn't by itself but it is one source among a variety. The totality is what matters. Look at the stub itself. It is well-written, discusses ED in depth and does so with no OR. I agree that that one sentence isn't very substantive content overall. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Washington Post - one sentence, mentioned in a comment, not in the article." --You either didn't take a very close look at the links in the article or you are attempting to deliberately mislead people. Follow the "their site" link to ED. Your fallacious "youtube is not a valid source" argument is ridiculous. Youtube maybe isn't a valid source, but the two national news broadcasts are. The MSNBC one leaves [REDACTED] up in gigantic bold letters on the screen. I'm trying to AGF here but you appear to be being intellectually dishonest. --Truthseeq (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How does a site link which isn't even named rate as a source? Youtube is not allowed as a reference because almost all of its videos are copyright violations, and Wikipedia policy is not to link to pages which violate copyright. If you can find links to the original broadcasts, I would re-evaluate their usefulness, but since it's to Youtbue, there's no point, thus my comment. I suggest you moderate your tone, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm hesitant to give ED any acknowledgment. I'm more inclined to go with Corvus cornix's rationale and vote Keep Deleted. And yes, before you ask, I would vote to delete 4chan too. JuJube (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I'd get rid of 4chan as well. What crap. Eusebeus (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - There's not going to be very many reliable sources, it is not notable enough to meet WP:WEB, and yes, I would support the deletion of 4chan. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and thanks to Corvus Cornix for doing the research on those listed sources. Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• The Gawker article gives actual coverage, and numerous mentions in other sources give it enough additional notability for me to support recreation with the said draft. But keep a very close eye on it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since when is a blog a reliable source? Mr.Z-man 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well-known blogs can be considered reliable if evaluated on a case-by-case basis. WP:RS Chubbles (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit Re-creation It's true that there are a lot of ridiculous internet memes that need to be nuked (i.e., Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)). This isn't one of them, though. This website is pretty well-known which is, I think, the reason why it was deleted and blacklisted to begin with. Uncyclopedia is up. Why not this one? It's basically the same thing. Wikipedia is not censored. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit Re-creation - I came to this via the suspended discussion at MfD regarding the userspace article, I read the discussions before reading the article draft or reviewing WP:WEB; after reviewing both discussions I was convinced that this one should stay deleted (and that the other should be kept), then I read the article, checked some of the references, and changed my mind. I reviewed WP:WEB and the sources seem non-trivial in context of what we are talking about. I found it particularly relevant that The Observer saw fit to reference it - the reference is minor but not trivial. I've never been to the website and I have no idea what 4chan is (that article is not relevant to this discussion - I did not read it); I generally reject any reference to a blog - so I consider myself a tough sell when it comes to web material - I'm convinced it should be allowed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit Re-creation - Or delete Uncyclopedia. --Watchman Rorschach (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation. The proposed article meets our three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. As for notability guidelines, keep in mind that policy on Wikipedia flows from what we actually do, not what is written on a policy page somewhere (with the exception of NPOV, which is a Foundation policy that must be adhered to). Based on the de facto standards that we use for websites, this one qualifies. The primary reason it's been kept deleted until now is that it personally attacked some of Wikipedia's contributors. But taking that into account when deciding whether to keep or delete the article would violate our mandate of neutral point of view. Consider that Wikinfo has been kept at AFD about a half dozen times despite the exact same notability argument (passing references only). Also consider that 3 passing references were apparently enough sourcing to keep MeatballWiki (see this AFD discussion that I started in December 2007). There's also 4chan and Uncyclopedia as mentioned above. One example is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; multiple examples start to show a trend, and indicate that maybe our guideline pages should be updated to reflect how Wikipedia actually works. *** Crotalus *** 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation per Crotalus. Madame Sosostris (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation controversy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't make an article less notable which is what most of the keep deleted votes are based on. It may infact make it more notable. According to Alexa.com, it is considerably more popular than Uncyclopedia and Veropedia in all forms (page views,rank etc). The reliable sources are there to proove it and to create a good article.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ED Break 1

• Keep deleted per Corvus cornix. shoy 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation Would be a keep if it was a site on another subject. If we want to keep our npov high-ground we should treat this the same as other sites.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation. Whether we like them and whether they like us has nothing to do with it. We allow articles on other websites of similar stature, no reason to single this one out for suppression. Zocky | picture popups 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation. The statement, from an administrator no less, that "there will never be an ED article" is a blatant example of the problems endemic to the administration of Wikipedia today. Currently, NPOV is a joke. When it's selectively enforced only on normal editors and on articles that the admins don't favor/despise, it becomes a hollow and laughable sham. --Neurophyre^(talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation, finally, this site has of course been the subject of endless disruption and countless DRV requests (at least one of which I have speedy closed myself, I'm pretty sure), but the userspace draft is of a standard of sourcing which I believe would be considered acceptable for a website without ED's history of controversy. --Stormie (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation draft article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Move to mainspace/permit recreation per Crotalus. There are some non-policy issues with this article - it does a poor job describing/identifying the subject and does a poor job explaining the importance of the subject - but from a policy standpoint, it looks good enough. --- RockMFR 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted...none of the "references" establish notability.--MONGO 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to vote one way or the other on this issue due to my obvious bias, but I would like to point out that you have a long documented history of antagonism with ED on a personal level that would interfere with your ability to vote on this issue in a dispassionate way. Regards, DLB --24.23.212.107 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, haha...it's surely that they seem to have had a beef with me to start with...they shouldn't have started somthing they couldn't finish successfully, IP.--MONGO 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's completely sidestepping the issue at hand. --71.135.168.43 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, with thanks for reopening this pointless drama. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question - taking away riding on 4chan's coattails, how notable is ED (as it's barely notable as it is)? If it stretches any thinner, a section in 4chan should be all that we have in that case. Will ^(talk) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How notable is Uncyclopedia and conservapedia then? I would refer you to my above statement posted earlier as to my objection over your obviously personal investment in the issue regarding this article. --24.23.212.107 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Uncyclopedia is notable outside Wikipedia per "most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site", and Conservapedia is notable outside Wikipedia for the Lipson affair (it's inevitable that, as using the same software, and specifically created as forks, that they'll get compared). Will ^(talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned Alexa before, Will.

[An Alexa URL was posted here which contained as a dynamic value the Encyclopedia Dramatica URL, which is the website's name plus .com. This URL can also be found on Google. Please do not assume people could figure this URL out on their own; <personal attack removed - Corvus cornix_{talk 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)> . Shii (tock) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)]}

I'd like to point out that Encyclopedia Dramatica has a drastically higher traffic rank than both Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia, as well as twenty or so times the daily page views of Conservapedia and anywhere from 2 to 5 times the daily page views on Uncyclopedia on any given day. Comparitived to ED these two other wikis are non-notable cruft. But that would be nonsense. The fact is, all three are notable and pass WP:WEB. You have a personal POV bias against ED. --Truthseeq (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the response after Will reverted it for no apparent reason[1].--91.121.88.13 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not. People just think they are. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Will people quit it with the "X has an article" arguments?! WE DO NOT BASE DETERMINATION OF NOTABILITY OF ONE SUBJECT BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER ARTICLES OF A SIMILAR NATURE Full Stop. (Conservapedia isn't even that similar). Mr.Z-man 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, Alexa is a very weak way of checking popularity of a website below the top 100. The fact you have to install a toolbar excludes Firefox users, Mac users, Linux users, etc. Will ^(talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

you do realize that there is an alexa toolbar for Firefox and there are versions of Firefox for Linux and Apple. So apple owners and linux users arent left out of the loop. I am using a linuxbox right now and I have 3 Macs in the other room. In order to surf the net on a Mac you do know that you don't have to use safari? Wiseblood1 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also the fact that there's many people (like myself) who don't install Alexa because we don't care. Skews the results as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - "which reference ED in passing" doesn't equal notability, per WP:N. Need significant coverage. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Hasn't changed at all. Jmlk17 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ED Break 2

• Keep deleted as per Corvus cornix, this website at best borderline notable, so no reason to move a stub about it to mainspace. --Minimaki (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation in an extremely, extremely tentative fashion, or at very least, allow the current draft exist and review later. Yes, the site has offended some of our editors, but in the name of neutrality we cannot subject the site to any stricter scrutiny than articles about any other sites. "It annoys us, let me grab my wikilaw book so we can figure out how to kill it" has gone altogether too far. Yet, now that the notability-confirming evidence is rolling in (one way or another), I am a little bit apprehensive: it'd still appear to me that the site is only approaching notability threshold. Peeking from behind the fence. "Uh oh, we have a new radar contact." Yet, I've seen many times that almost-notable articles had to be recreated anyway later on when the notability is more definite, and we've wasted tons of Wikipedia: space on this site as is, so I'm starting to wear out and just give it a benefit of doubt for the time being. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • After reconsidering the sources a bit, I'd say neutral - I'm not entirely convinced the sources are strong enough yet. However, I will say the sources are definitely improving. It is possible the site will be notable in future. The article will undoubtedly be a great hit in DRV for years to come (we can't live without perennial proposals, it seems). All I can do about it is to just express my hope that next time this gets dragged to DRV, there's impressive sources. After all, tis time was a little bit better than the last time. Maybe they manage to actually inspire mainstream media somehow. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - on review of the material I find myself unpersuaded that ED meets our inclusion criteria. I think Corvus cornix's analysis of the references is correct. These are trivial mentions, not writing about ED. The closest that comes to doing so is Gawker, but I do not think that blog is sufficiently significant that its coverage indicates notability. Whether an article on ED should be here has been reviewed many times, the case for it has been found lacking. I do not think enough has changed since the last reviews to warrant coming to a different conclusion today. WjBscribe 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - to reiterate what many others have said, I see a lot of mentions of the website's name, but mentions aren't enough. There still are not sufficient sources that actually discuss the wesite. To forestall the threaded comments coming up underneath here: 1. It doesn't matter whether I'd want to delete 4chan, because this isn't about 4chan 2. This particular topic gets held to stringent standards specifically because it's been a source of badness before, and becuase the nature of the website encourages such badness, making it likely that renominations are crap. It isn't a double standard, it's a standard. It happens that this discussion is in good faith, but there's still not enough material for an article. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment An AN case has been opened in regards to this DRV. Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: We need more encyclopaedic articles, not about a cesspool that is a "parody" web-site that hosts "raids" on legitimate games and Wikipedia articles such as Habbo and others. Let's focus on real content. seicer | talk | contribs 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Trivial mentions, including the one paragraph mention on a blog which provides little in the way of source material for an encyclopedic article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mr.Z-man and Corvus cornix. GlassCobra 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. When something is vulgar and full of personal attacks and hate, we need a higher level of notability, such as multiple reputable mainstream references. Crum375 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation As notable as 4chan, higher Alexa rank than Uncyclopedia, and we have articles about completely unimportant things (e.g. Prussian Blue (duo)), which makes me wonder why we consider this so unimprotant. 4.152.6.245 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per all common sense. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation per Shii and Crotalus. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation. Anything else would have the appearance of major WP:NPOV violations: we don't like them so we refuse to talk about them. That's not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now, per Corvus cornix's detailed explanation. In the future, it may certainly be notable enough for an article, but, as of right now, it's not quite there. нмŵוτнτ 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• This almost makes me want to cut my fingers off, but weakly permit recreation. The stub is okay, and while I don't think the sources are really that spectacular (Corvus' work is similar to what I did during one of these in the past and found similar results: noise, but little signal), the substantial number of them available and placed in the article edge it towards a reasonable article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I am sure I will be told this is a violation of NPOV, but there is such a thing as an extreme situation. No website or publication that includes me and several other administrators on a list of persons who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews," on the ground that we intervened to protect an editor here who is a minor from harassment, is worthy of our continued attention. No other issue need be reached. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brad, that's disappointing coming from you. Surely you realize how that stance is indefensible? We have articles about thieves, murderers, rapists, war criminals, etc. Our feelings towards ED and ED's feelings about us simply don't come into the picture when deciding this. Zocky | picture popups 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The thieves and murderers aren't thieving and murdering for the purpose of intentionally causing emotional distress to Wikipedia participants, and presumably their notability is less borderline than this site's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Border-line notability" is a valid argument, but that's not what you argued. Your !vote has the "us vs. them" tone, to the extent that you say "no website ... that includes me..." I say that's quite an improper argument, and coming from the person who recently got voted onto the ArbCom in a landslide, it makes me mildly embarassed. Zocky | picture popups 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you think I have a COI on the argument you might be right, and others may discount it accordingly. I don't expect my point to sway the decision. On the other hand, the point wasn't "me" per se but that many Wikipedians are targeted in that fashion (some far, far worse than I am), and so I don't think I'm the only one to have those feelings, and understandably so. Incidentally, since I am sure this thread will be picked up externally, this sort of thing is also another reason that many of us choose not to edit under our real names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• I actually commend you NYB and wish more would follow your lead. Let's be honest. If we want to exclude ED despite our core NPOV policy just say so. End this charade of pretending we're examining the site with the same policy we use for other web sites.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do not visit ED, and was not aware that the site carried content this deplorable. Nonetheless, as difficult as it may be (and I fully understand your position here), I don't think that their attacks on our contributors should play a role in this deliberation. I'm in favor of keeping this article for the same reason that the ACLU was in favor of permitting the Skokie march by Nazis — it's the thin end of the wedge, the top of a slippery slope. We must stand by our principles (in this case, NPOV when applied to inclusion), even when it is difficult to do so.
• Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose that Stormfront — a website of at least equal vileness and much greater notability — started personally attacking Wikipedians, trying to out their identities, and doing all of the other things ED is or was doing. Would you then advocate that the Stormfront article should be deleted? How far do we bend the inclusion principles to keep out offensive material? How does this fit at all with WP:NOT#CENSORED? ED is not an appealing cause in any way, and I'm not 100% sure that my arguments are on the right side. But I ask you to consider the broader implication of your arguments here. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The only sources provided are not really about ED, with the possible exception of Gawker. However, I don't think Gawker is worthy of being considered a reliable source. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation per Shii and Croaltus. I want to say go away per Brad, but if you give an inch on principles like NPOV here, whats to stop us from giving ground later on something else controversial? Lawrence § t/e 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Corvis Cornix, Newyorkbrad, Gavia Immer, Seicer, One Night in Hackney, WjBscribe, Dihydrogen Monoxide, and others. Don't ask me about 4chan, Uncyclopedia, or any other article. If you want to know how I'd !vote on them at AfD, nominate them. Horologium (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Corvis Cornix. Avruch ^T 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• hopefully never —DerHexer (Talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Even thinking about restoring it is a really bad idea - Most articles on ED are how you say "crap" and basically 'personal attacks and Grudges' against admins and editors so its more of a Soapbox looking for drama and feeding of it rather than a real Encyclopedia dedicated to helping users learn...it is one of those 'Badsites', 'Attacksites' which should never have exist let alone have their own article on Wikipedia...--Cometstyles 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. That's not an accurate depiction of the site. Most articles there have nothing at all to do with WP - we're the focus of less than 1% of their content. It's a satirical wiki, done in what many take to be extremely poor taste. That has nothing to do with whether or not it meets our ordinary notability guidelines. If you make arguments that sounds so much like "IDONTLIKEIT", you actually weaken your position. This is why it took so many attempts to delete the article: Every time someone talks about how morally repugnant they find the site, it gets harder to delete the article, because such comments contribute to the perception that we're making decisions for personal reasons rather than encyclopedic ones. If we don't have articles on things that we deem "should never have existed," then we've got a lot of deletions coming. (I don't think the Vietnam War ever should have existed, and it did more damage than ED. Can we delete its article?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Permit recreation-If this were anything else with a comparable level of sourcing, we'd allow it. If we're going to hold an article to a higher standard because of our opinions about or history with its subject, we might as well just get rid of WP:NPOV. There's one standard, that's it: not one for nice sites and another for not-so-nice ones.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation per Shii, Crotalus, Fyre2387. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Corvus cornix. The only novel thing about this latest attempt to shoehorn in an ED article is using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a tactic. And I DO mean "tactic", not "argument". --Calton | Talk 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation or bring in userspace version. Passes WP:WEB. The strong opposition here shows exactly what's wrong with trolling: it annoys the whole community, then no one will actually want to undelete it even when you have the right to claim it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - ED is a borderline notability case according to WP:WEB. That means arguments can be made in both directions as to whether or not it hacks the standard. So we can yell ourselves hoarse over whether or not policy supports it and we'll never get anywhere. Wikipedia runs on community consensus. We need to decide as a community whether or not we want the page here. People are talking about ED like we're suppressing some sort of massive underground community movement. I urge you not to be confused in the slightest as to what ED is about; ED is, by their own description, "...made by a**holes who got kicked out of editing at Wikipedia so they made their own Wiki where standards of good taste, common decency, and the avoidance of NSFW pictures do not exist."(.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica) A large portion of the site is dedicated to insanely vitriolic attack pages (including personal info) on a number of Wikipedia editors. And as the saying goes, you can't polish a turd. As for the argument that every ED editor isn't necessarily a disruptive troll, I'd like to point out that everyone who lives under a bridge isn't necessarily a hobo, an alcoholic, or a homeless drug-addict; but they still can't say that they don't live under a bridge. I realize damnatio memoriae is not an option, but we also sure as hell don't have to invite them to come in and draw mustaches on the paintings and put their feet on the sofa. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a discussion about ED, it's the discussion about the Wikipedia article about ED. Them being assholes has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should have an article on them or not. Zocky | picture popups 03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope Bullzeye realizes that the personal attacks about WP on ED only popped up after personal attacks about ED were not removed, but page protected on WP. WP set themselves up for their attacks by not removing them in-kind. Your own vitriol about trolls, right here, is bordering on a personal attack against anyone who has an account on both sites. You can state your opinion on stay or go without commenting on other contributors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • It is indeed personally offensive to me. --Neurophyre^(talk) 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete clearly notable, this ridiculous censorship has got to stop.  Grue  04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  I think the only thing that's "clear" is that it's not clear whether or not the site is notable enough, by our usual standard of WP:WEB. It's clearly borderline. Characterizing other Wikipedians' good-faith doubts about the site's notability as "ridiculous censorship" is not helpful. Thanks for understanding, and do please expand on why you find the notability clear. Personally, I don't see it as clear, and if you wish to accuse me of anti-ED bias... then you don't know what you're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Not "notable" to anyone other than WIkipedians. Inclusion of an ED article is asking for trouble and disruption. The long term best interests of the project must be protected. Cleo123 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ED Break 3

• ARBCOM ruling There is an arbcom ruling on ED that should be noted, it is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_ED and says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it". — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Useful to note, but keep in mind that the ArbCom ruling has to do with using ED as a reference or including content from ED here, not having an article about ED. It seems the question we're not asking regarding notability is what are the chances someone would stumble across references to ED and come to Wikipedia to find out what it is. I think that is the defining point of notability.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per Corvus cornix. Garion96 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Not notable. All references provided mention ED only briefly in passing at best (as far as they can even be considered as sources of notability). CharonX/talk 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I disagree with the "never ever" mentality expressed by many above, since if a respected publication or two writes a thorough article on ED someday demonstrating it's notable for something we should probably include it - this is a neutral encyclopedia. But as is, I still really don't see any evidence that the site is actually notable - as others mentioned above, the sources in this draft only mention ED in passing - and it may appear more notable than it really is to Wikipedians, due to their prominent rabble-rousing here, as well as the general inflated self-importance of the "Anonymous" crowd. krimpet✽ 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Z-man, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (referring to the 4chan comment in the nomination) and every comment Sceptre has made. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:20 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Out of curiosity, if this article were re-created, we couldn't even link to ED, per the ArbCom ruling, right? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, we surely could. It is generally understood, I think, that the ArbCom ruling would not restrict the use of a link to ED in an article about ED (consistent with our practice with respect to other websites), and, in any event, the discretion of the ArbCom to construe our policies with respect to harassment, etc., does not extend to their foreclosing on editorial decisions taken per common practice and policy. It would, of course, be nonsensical for us to have an article about ED without a link to the site, and I cannot imagine that the community (or the arbs, for that matter) would understand it as within the province of the ArbCom to bar constructive (that is, within mainspace and toward no disruptive end) linking. Joe 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See Attack sites decision. Basically, here ArbCom has stated for the record that it doesn't have the teeth that people think it has, and MONGO case should in no circumstance be over-interpreted. ArbCom has the authority to proclaim whatever they deem necessary to curb user harassment (linking to nasty ED pages about our editors or copying content from there is not nice, of course), but they don't have the authority to censor verifiable encyclopaedic content; careful people also note that MONGO case remedy says (external/iw) links may be removed, not that creating an article would be forbidden without ArbCom's approval. I seem to remember someone also stating that if the community feels ED is notable enough for an article, they would clarify this position further. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation very notable, what ArbCom says is bullshit anyway. Trialeagh (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This editor has made little to no contributions outside this deletion review. — Κaiba 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've read the draft article and the provided references, and there simply isn't enough reliable secondary information to write a full-length article without original research. At best, this merits a short mention within another article. Many people have pointed out that the sources are trivial and mention the subject of the article only in passing; what no one has brought up is that an unacceptably large portion of the draft article merely points out that "This web site has been mentioned in passing in an article about something else. ^[ref]" I echo Krimpet's remarks that "never never never, go away, you worthless trolls" is unproductive, and that neutrality requires us to treat concerted outside campaigns to include information with more caution, not less. That they're hostile to us instead being the usual horde of socks begging for their pet website to have an article is immaterial. Keep deleted for now. —Cryptic 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Unnotable as established above. Although technically not a reason for a deletion, I am also very wary of adding links to ED on Wikipedia, as their content on Wikipedia very much defines an attack site. It has personally attacked me before, it continues to attack other contributors here, and for that, WP:COI as it may be, I will never support an article of this website. — Κaiba 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. Finding eighteen sources that mention a site without properly discussing it does not mean that it qualifies for an article here. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Alternatively we can create a permanently protected stub as this is all the encyclopedia space this subject merits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Stay deleted per Corvus. Still no significant third party coverage. At least sites like Conservapedia have references that have full length articles on the site instead of passing mentions. Spellcast (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt by transclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WjBscribe, Stifle, and others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and add 12 jumbo bags of salt. All sources are trivial mentions and do not provide the context required for establishing notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Not convinced. MBisanz ^talk 08:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Place sourced information in a paragraph in a suitable article and recreate redirect - I think there is enough sourced information now for a paragraph in a relevant article (but not enough for a separate article), and for the link Encyclopedia Dramatica to be recreated as a redirect to that paragraph. If such a paragraph already exists, could someone point me to it please? Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The closest I could find was the following at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous_criticism: "Satire also exists in the form of parody encyclopedias such as Uncyclopedia[148] and Encyclopedia Dramatica.[149]" Is this the minimum that is acceptable at the moment on this topic? It actually seems rather misleading to have the only mention I can find (so far) on Wikipedia (in mainspace) to be in a section titled "Humorous criticism". I think the Wikipedia criticism article should mention ED (but in a more rigorously sourced way), and that attention should be paid to references to ED in other Wikipedia articles, not just whether it has its own article or not. Carcharoth (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I looked through the history of Criticism of Wikipedia, and the mention of ED in that sentence seems to have originated from this edit on 27 August 2007, and has been present ever-since over the past 5.5 months. I hope that anyone who is deeply involved in the ED discussion on Wikipedia (I've only just got involved now) and who objects to this sentence thinks long and hard about how they missed it before. There was some discussion on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, but I haven't fully read that (rather long) page yet. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation there seems to be quite a bit of moving the goalposts in relation to this specific article whenever it comes up. First it was a "bad site", which caused a legion of problems on its basis, then when that was repealed it was because it wasn't sourced, when that was fixed it was declared it wasn't reliably sourced, and after about forty tries we've reached a point where it's being moved to keep deleted because "it's trolling" to have it exist with the person who created the draft being personally attacked for "restarting the drama". To me that says a lot more about the "keep deleted" proponents than the re-creators. Arguing against an article because it hurt your feelings is not quite neutral. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's quite a few of us, myself included, who haven't been hurt by ED. Personally, I don't care about them as a website one way or the other (trying to drag BADSITES back up into this is just opening a can of worms I don't think anyone wants to revisit...again). I, along with quite a few others above, have said there's a certain lack of non-trivial coverage. That being said, it warrants deletion, as does any article that is unsourced and of borderline notability to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 March 2008

• It can not warrant deletion as it does not currently exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Semantics, I mean it shouldn't be created. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Permit recreation. If ED isn't notable, not much is on the intertubes. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's correct. There's millions of websites. Only a few thousand are really notable. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - does anyone have opinions on whether a paragraph in a relevant article is acceptable, and whether a redirect can point at that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also note that Wikipedia Review is (since December 2007 and an AfD debate) a protected redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia (although there is no mention in that article of WR). I wonder if something similar can be done here. A protected redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be an invalid redirect as ED isn't simply an anti-wikipedia website. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Any idea for an article where a minimal sourced paragraph could be merged, or where a redirect could be pointed at? (Parent company, genre of websites, list of websites)? Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If it must exist, then 4chan. Will ^(talk) 15:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. None of the sources cited in the draft is both a non-trivial mention, and from a reliable source. The subject is not notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite my personal opinions about ED and my comments about the provided sources, if multiple reliable sources could be found, I would not object to a recreation based on those sources. But I have yet to see any that meet our WP:RS guidelines. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I hope I'm editing the right subsection... I'm looking at the sources used in the draft rewrite, and they fall into a few categories
  1. Articles about the Jason Fortuny, which mention ED as the site where Mr. Fortuny posted all those emails. [2] [3] [4] [5]
  2. Articles about Project Chanology, mentioning ED as a place to learn more. (Aspects of their coverage are much more thorough than ours, it turns out.) [6] [7] [8]
  3. Articles about trolling. There are a couple of specific instances of internet trolling in which ED receives some tangential mention [9] [10]. One is about trolling in general [11]. Also, there's one Washington Post article [12] about some LiveJournal attack where ED is linked to in the article (identified, inaccurately, as "Bantown"'s official website), and mentioned in the public comments below the article.
  4. One New York Times article [13] about Wikipedia in which ED is mentioned as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite" that "pillories" WP admins.
  5. Two articles that are primarily, or in large part about ED [14] [15]. One is at Gawker.com, a blog, and the other is at News & Review, an alternative weekly out of Chico, California.

  The first four don't really contribute anything to notability, so it's down to the blog and the alternative weekly. I don't think that's enough to satisfy WP:WEB. I recommend the article remain deleted for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Breakdown so far: My rough and unscientific and probably slightly inaccurate count shows that so far, there are 50 keep deleted votes vs. 32 permit recreation votes. (Yes, I know it isn't a straight vote, its a discussion, etc. The breakout is handy anyway). 32/82 is 39.0% to permit recreation vs 60.9% to keep deleted. Avruch ^T 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD or CfD)

Closed as delete when the results were no consensus. I know it's not numbers alone, but when you have a three on two debate for something that isn't violating anything, and where no one really can prove if it actually is useful or not, and good arguments on both sides, that's not a consensus. No hard feelings on anyone, and I know a lot of people will feel this is a boring topic, but it is what it is, and I'm bringing it to DRV. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Since the focus of an XFD closure should be arguments, rather than numbers, I feel that the closure was appropriate. (Disclosure: I'm the original nominator and a member of this category.) The "keep" reasons asserted the usefulness of the activity of random page patrolling, but did not specify how the category helped in the improvement of articles or was otherwise useful. One does not need a template-populated category to click the "random article" link and then to click "edit this page". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very weak argument for deletion. No one needs a template or category to do recent changes patrol either, or a large number of other tasks which we give user categories. Some users wish to see how many other users are using or encouraging such methods, and is just as valid as Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this category is just as valid as the recent changes category (in any case, that's an "other stuff" argument). Recent changes patrol requires/involves some specific expertise (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use), whereas random page patrol does not - it's just a general form of browsing and editing. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Expertise? Are you joking? I have no doubt there are levels of expertise in recent changes patrolling, but the same can be said for any form of patrolling, including one's own watchlist. Even if you were correct, how does Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers help editors when any editor can add themselves, not necessarily an expert or anyone who's good at helping other users? Do users add themselves to this category/userbox with the intention on helping other users, or just telling people that they do RC patrolling? It's perfectly comparable, because recent changes patrolling, with all the mad skillz "required", doesn't need a category to help people anymore than random patrolling. Nor is this an "other stuff" argument, since the example is explained. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• You wrote that "the same can be said for any form of patrolling". If that is the case, then please identify what type of expertise is involved in random page patrolling? As for the fact that the members of Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers are not necessarily expert RC patrollers ... well, so what? Using user categories for collaboration is always a probability game; however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher.
• With regard to your question about the intent of users in this category ... I don't know, nor do I feel it's particularly relevant in this instance. I may add myself to a category just to tell others I do RC patrol, but if someone asks me for advice or clarification regarding RC patrol because of my membership in the category, I will do my best to help. You emphasize the question of "need", but I prefer to look at things in terms of utility (technically, there is no "need" to do anything except eat, breathe, and sleep). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The same type of "expertise" in any given form of page patrolling (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use).
• however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher. And how are you coming to this conclusion? You've only asserted that you feel it won't facilitate collaboration. Nor have you explained how having a user category for RC patrollers does facilitate collaboration. Personally I think both categories are appropriate because they help other editors see who's using such methods. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Random page (RP) patrolling only rarely involves identifying problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, or issuing warning notices. It just involves clicking "Random article" and making small or large improvements to some random article. I come to the conclusion that the collaborative potential of this category is virtually zero based on my previous comment: RP patrolling is not a standard form of page patrolling, but rather a very general method of browsing and editing. Also, I have explained how the RC category could (not necessarily does) faciliate collaboration: someone wanting to become involved in RC patrolling could ask a current RC patroller for information or advice. (e.g. What should I do if I come across an edit that's questionable but not obvious vandalism?)
• As for your justification for "appropriateness", why is it important to know who's using such methods? I could understand wanting to know whether a specific editor is a RP patroller, but then your port of call would be the editor's user page, not a directory of RP patrollers. As a statistical tool, categories are completely useless, since one can draw virtually no valid conclusions from them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Random page patrol:
  Random page patrol refers to the process of regularly and frequently checking randomly selected pages through Special:Random.
  The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation.
  The guidelines for the Recent changes and New pages patrols apply, merely the search method is different.
  It seems to me that you misunderstand what RPP is. People click on the random links and check the page history, the talk page, the past, present, and future. At least that's how I always did it, and that's how it is described on Wikipedia:Random page patrol.-- Ned Scott 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• The general guidelines do apply, but the specific techniques do not. For instance, a RP patroller often cannot simply revert or rollback edits. In addition, an RP patroller generally should not issue standard template-warnings to users for questionable edits made several months ago. Moreover, RP patrol also involves checking the current status of the page, instead of just checking the the status of the most recent edit(s). The "skills" required for RP patrol are not significantly different from the skills required for regular editing, which is not the case with "recent changes" and "new pages" patrol. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn The discussion did not produce a consensus and so it should have been closed as No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you clarify why you feel that the discussion failed to produce a consensus? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion failed to produce a consensus because the contributing editors failed to agree. One camp saw this as "trivial...no need...what purpose". The other camp said "perfectly good...will encourage others...certainly does help". The balance seemed to be evenly divided and there were no pressing policy reasons to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying. Do you not think that one should also consider whether each camp stated why the category is useful or useless, in light of the fact that a claim of utility that is unaccompanied by an explanation is not necessarily informative? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per BF. Valid close. --Kbdank71 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to non-consensus Two policy based keeps, three deletes--including 34 or 5 comments from thee d. who proposed the deletion. That's not consensus for a fairly widely used category. the closer closed according to personal opinion, & shoudl rather have joined the debate and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as per Black Falcon. Just because the category is widely used does not indicate that it is useful; the userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment. There is no reason why someone would need to identify random page patrollers, and in fact the category is totally useless for collaboration due to its random nature. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The closure was not wrong. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion No particularly strong feelings about the issue, but we need to encourage closures that, as noted by BF above, focus on arguments, rather than numbers. And the rationale provided in the debate & close is legit. Eusebeus (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This close didn't focus on the arguments, it focused on what arguments the closer agreed with. Part of establishing a consensus means that even if you disagree with someone else, you at least acknowledge a reasonable argument. I don't see that in this discussion, at all. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - IMO, strength of arguments to delete outweighed that of keep reasoning. VegaDark (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Would anyone object to a relisting, to help clarify consensus? -- Ned Scott 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - over a 100 editors added themselves to this category, which probably means that they thought it's a category that should exist. I'm guessing that at least some of them have good reasons for believing so. Seeing how there are no pressing policy issues with the category, I don't think that the deletion discussion as it was was enough to establish the consensus that the category should be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, over 100 people added the userbox to their page, which automatically puts users in the category. Only 4 individual users specifically placed this category on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Which is still more than the three people who voted to delete it. Plus, I think we can assume that at least some of the 100+ people at least noticed after the fact that they were in that category and didn't bring it to CFD. Zocky | picture popups 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Except that one of them did; Black Falcon, the nominator, noted above that he was a member of the category. I didn't contribute to the original discussion because a) I didn't feel terribly strongly about it, and b) It didn't appear to be a controversial decision. If I had !voted, would that have made a difference to you? UCFD is not based on numbers, but on strength of argument, and IMO the stronger argument fell to those who advocated deleting the cat. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, out of 100+ users that were aware of the existence of the category, 1 thought it should be brought to CfD, and 99+ didn't. I'm not saying that this is a number game. I'm saying that the 3 people who !voted delete probably don't know all the arguments that the 99+ people who thought the category was OK would have brought up. Zocky | picture popups 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• We can't know that 100+ users were aware of the category. 100+ users were aware of the userbox, but it took only one editor to make the category a part of the userbox. There were no "99+ people who thought the category was OK"; there were 2. As for the nomination itself ... practically all deletion nominations are started by just one person, but that doesn't mean that everyone else who knew about the page should be assumed to support its retention (case in point: someone else recently started an AFD on an article I had edited and watchlisted and I supported deletion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not assume that those editors are stupid and didn't notice the category. Otherwise, It's a matter of scale. An article edited by a hundred people shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people, and likewise, a user category with a hundred members (and no pressing policy issues) shouldn't be deleted by votes of 3 people. Zocky | picture popups 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• One doesn't have to be stupid to not notice one category out of 10 or 20 or 50 at the bottom of a user page; one may just not pay attention to the bottom of one's userpage. As for the issue of scale, articles edited by 100+ people are deleted by discussions that involve 5 or 10 people on a daily basis. Editing an article does not imply support for its retention, just as being in a category does not imply support for its retention. More importantly, consensus is not a complex numbers game that involves evaluations of the ratio of participants to members, or of member-participants to non-member-participants. Five people are just as capable of discussing two sides of an issue and evaluating relevant arguments as are 100 (in fact, with 100 people, discussions tend to become chaotic). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - no rationale provided by the closing administrator, and there's no clear consensus from the debate. Editors were clearly divided over the utility of the category and userbox. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overtun deletion and reclose as no consensus. The length of this post combined with the CfD, in my mind, indicate that there really is no consensus as to whether this category should be here or not, which should default to keeping the category. For what it's worth, any user category, (again my opinion), that is based on a user process (be it new pages, recent changes, vandalism, disambiguating, whatever) is perfectly valid, perfectly harmless, and if it means that even one or two editors, at some point, having noticed the other in the category, collaborate on something because of the introduction through the category, then it has served Wikipedia well. There, I've successfully argued WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:HARMLESS, and WP:USEFUL. A simpler solution perhaps, could maybe Black Falcon, and anyone else, just remove x-self from the category if xe doesn't like it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn In addition to being baffled as to why anyone would take a second of their time to propose deletion, neither the nomination nor a single one of those jumping on the deletion bandwagon offered any valid justification for why Wikipedia policy would require deletion of this category. As such, I see no choice but to overturn the result. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I think the nomination rationale of "this category does not facilitate collaboration" is in the eye of the beholder, and consensus was weak (different arguments) compared to the opposition. WP:USEFUL is certainly a valid argument for a user category, and I believe Ned Scott correctly argued that while this may not spur direct collaboration on a particular article, it certainly encourages indirectly broader collaboration on Wikipedia generally. Have a thought for the part-time Wikipedians, in other words. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• How does the category do this in a way that is substantially different from the userbox which extensively populates this category? While WP:USEFUL may be a valid argument, the utility of the category has not been demonstrated here. As I noted above, due to the random nature of the category, collaboration is not possible, which is supposed to be the purpose of the categorization system. The userbox is a great idea, but it doesn't need the category appended to it to serve its purpose. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's no consensus in that debate. There's no real consensus on Wikipedia about what to do with user categories. The best thing to do would be to politely ignore the whole mess, but that would be too easy. Ultimately it doesn't really matter if the category exists or not, let's at least all be honest with each other. What bothers everyone is the impression that some people are telling other people what the rules are, especially on an encyclopedia where we pretty much make the rules up as we go along. Rather than relive the deletion debate, rather than wait for whatever admin decides to close this in an impartial manner, can the two sides follow WP:CONSENSUS and actually find common ground? What's more important here, holding on to our divisions or trying to do the best by each other? I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up world. Someday you'll understand that. No real preference either way. Hiding T 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes,it was a premature attempt to force consensus where there really isn't any, just as Hiding says. My own view on the category is that all forms of page patrolling are so essential to the quality of WP that they are to be encouraged, that people engaged in them need to help and teach one another how to do it right, and that all ways of assisting it, such as this category, are positively helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. We removed the Rouge administrators category because it might give people the wrong idea (& in fact I agree with that view)--but is random page patrolling also a potentially dangerous idea? Is this peripheral to the encyclopedia? Has it been used in a harmful way? is it likely to? Why then remove things that might encourage a feeling of cooperation in doing it? that is exactly the intended purpose of user categories. DGG (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - administrator did not establish consensus, whereas keep arguments were clearly according to policy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG, Dhartung, Alansohn, Mackensen and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Cube lurker et al Cleo123 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per the excellent arguments provided above. John254 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Harmless, and not in article space. Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn — That there are many editors choosing to associate and organize themselves with this category for the purpose of random page patrolling seems to me completely harmless and extremely beneficial to the encyclopedia. - Neparis (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per DGG and because this was a poor call. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete was achieved. Arguments that random page patrolling is a helpful activity miss the mark since it is the category and not the activity that is under discussion. Comments here that the existence of the category facilitates the activity are out of place (since this is not CfD round2) and more importantly not convincing (to me). Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Santogold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Requesting Unsalting based on this user draft. Chubbles (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation Sources in the draft article establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate, now it's a good stub that establishes notability. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate. Very nice looking article, well sourced, therefore, I agree with MaxSem, Chubbles, and Davewild. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate. Draft looks good, and I'm just aching to work on it too :). --Kakofonous (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate I'm excited to work on it too! In time, the notability will be obvious. As it is, it's a requested article and picked as one of the top albums of 2008. [16][17][18]--travisthurston+ 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation Looks a lot better now. Great job! Jmlk17 09:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Recreation Clearly notable. Cleo123 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation per the above arguments. Cowardly Lion (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation; there are now multiple non-trivial sources about the artist. Horologium (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Any chance of a Speedy Close on this? Chubbles (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)