Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ljdrama

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ljdrama

A lengthy article about a website that I don't think is really that notable. Wordy with it, and any notable information could easily be fitted within the LiveJournal article. Declaration of possible vested interest: LJ Drama (as it's correctly called) has often made a target of the furry fandom, of which I am part. Loganberry | Talk 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, vote changed to keep, but with considerable cleanup. Loganberry | Talk 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It could do with some cleanup, but LJdrama was prominent enough to cause quite a bit of a flap on LJ with its actions. Putting it in the LJ article would not really be relevant (not to mention bloaty) because it's a separate community with its own sites that just imports from and targets LJ. --khaosworks 01:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It sounds more like internet jargon or slang. If anything, should just be added to a list of slang. The user account on livejournal has been suspended anyway. <>Who?¿? 07:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm. Keep it, I've heard of it lots of places. DS 16:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. LiveJournal communities are generally not notable. Almafeta 08:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly the most notable lj community. It's not even hosted on lj. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above is fair comment... but your recent edit to the actual Ljdrama article is hardly NPOV. Loganberry | Talk 23:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If kept, needs cleaning-up -- some parts are severely POV (E.g. officially cementing LiveJournal's status as a safe haven where rapists and other convicted sexual predators could conveniently stalk new victims) --Simon Cursitor 07:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but cleanup. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP seems like this a legitimate site that others are trying to supress. --The_stuart 15:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Suppress? That's a bit of a loaded statement, isn't it? Loganberry | Talk 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While "suppress" is a bit much, and the article needs quite a makeover, it is indeed a notable site, and goes far beyond a bit of slang. Ambi 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.