Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

Original nomination

Given that Encyclopædia Dramatica has been successfully AFD'ed, I think it would be worthwhile to review the original KEEP decision in the case of this page. I would hold that Uncyclopedia is no more notable or verifiable than ED, so given that ED has been deleted, then to be consistent, Uncyclopedia should be deleted also. --SJK 07:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Q0 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's been Slashdotted and has appeared in many mainstream places, including here. MER-C 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing nomination - well, given the fact that it has been slashdotted, and ED hasn't, I think that could serve as a good reason to exclude ED and include Uncyclopedia. I would add, that by the same logic though, if ED were to be slashdotted, that would justify a deletion review of ED. --SJK 08:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [changed my mind; I'm not voting one way or the other, I just want to hear what people think --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)]
  • I hardly think being on Slashdot establishes notability. The Register may be a better source, but I don't knw. As far as a deletion review for ED, I'm pretty sure it's already happening. And just a note, I am not arguing for or against Uncyclopedia, just as I avoided the ED deletion mess. I'm just saying, I don't think being on Slashdot = automatic inclusion criterium. GassyGuy 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I opposed ED deletion, I'm not going to fight it any further -- I really don't care that much about (if someone else wants to DR it, that's their problem). However, I do care about consistency -- if ED is to be excluded, yet somewhat similar Wikipedia-offshoot sites included, then we need to come up with a good reason to include one and exclude the other. I agree that Slashdotting is not the best criteria -- but its better than none, and its not too bad a criteria. "uncyclopedia site:slashdot.org" ~ 568 ghits; "encyclopediadramatica site:slashdot.org" - 319 ghits. So both have been "slashdotted" -- albeit not in the sense of having a main article about them. 568 is bigger than 319, but I don't think its an order of magnitude difference. And note that neither has (as far as I am aware) been "slashdotted" in the sense of being featured on slashdot as an article; they've just been mentioned in the discussions. So, what is the rule/principle here? --SJK 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:I think the Uncyclopedia article on adding a 200Gb hard drive to the iPod Nano was slashdotted? In any case, the main difference would appear to be that Uncyclopedia is not just one single wiki; it's a community of related projects hosted as twenty-two individual language wikis across multiple sites in the US, Canada and Europe. There are currently six Uncyclopedia projects which are above a thousand pages each. (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://nonsensopedia.wikia.com http://de.uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://hiki.pedia.ws http://inciclopedia.wikia.com http://zh.uncyclopedia.info in English, Polish, German, Finnish, Spanish and regular-script Traditional Chinese). Is that enough to be notable? --carlb 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep VERY notable. Aeon Insane Ward 09:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Over half a million Google hits, press coverage spanning three continents, and the second largest Wikicity, and people are still questioning notability? -- Codeine 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep again. This is much more notable than ED. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Bad-faith nomination. See WP:POINT. It is not appropriate to nominate an article for deletion as a means of protesting another deletion. Ace of Sevens 12:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Uncyclopedia is so active that Wikia staff decided to do their testing on it, as they said here. --Sbluen 12:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alexa rank of 8000. One of the largest Wikia sites. I believe it has been mentioned in a published book and might soon appear in an article the Wall Street Journal are writing about Wikia. (Note: I am biased since Wikia hosts this site). The deletion of Encyclopædia Dramatica is not relevant to this discussion since deletion should be based on policy, not precedent, and Uncyclopedia meets the WP:WEB guidelines. Angela. 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Merge if you must. Highly notable. Just underwent a massive rewrite to make it better. Crazyswordsman 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to Speedy Keep before all the anti-Uncyclopedian attackers (see Talk:Uncyclopedia for more info) spam this. Crazyswordsman 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per already said. --Deenoe 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete When I re-wrote the ED article I used this article as a template specifically because it survived AfD. ED is/was more relevant, had more users, higher Alexa ranking, etc, when it was re-written. On AfD after the re-write, it was decided both articles should be kept. If ED is now deleted, so should Uncyc.
Nice note: The reasoning from the closing admin for ED was that ED was only sourced to itself. The first 20 references in the uncyc article are itself. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All parody wikis are not made equal. Maybe once ED is in 22 languages, mentioned in 5 newspapers, not blogs or "zines" (all the links link to the newspaper article, read and check if you want), and is owned by Jimbo it'll be notable. Though I couldn't say that's very likely. --Keitei (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait, Jimbo owns us? I thought Chron did. Crazyswordsman 15:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "and is owned by Jimbo" So, just being owned by Jimbo (which, I believe it's only hosted by him through a proxy non-profit) is a point in favor or notability? SchmuckyTheCat 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikia recently bought the domain name and trademark, which I think is what Keitei means when shes says "is owned by Jimbo". It's not run through any non-profit. Angela. 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. To quote the article: "Uncyclopedia has been referenced online in the New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Guardian, The Register, and the Taipei Times", ED has not. There's the difference. --Conti|✉ 15:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per pretty much everyone above. Its Alexa rank is especially convincing. --Zoz (t) 15:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep more notable than ED, and the latter should've been kept anyway.  Grue  16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Voice of Treason 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as there doesn't appear to be a valid deletion criterion, unless someone can prove that none of its press coverage was non-trivial. GassyGuy 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per all the other keeps. ... discospinster talk 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad faith nomination, and clearly notable. Ericj 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.