Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 23

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

As explained in the discussion in my talk page, the article is notable and I did referenced more than just websites, I referenced two leading newspapers and media sites that wrote articles ABOUT BWITTY and not just mentioned bwitty. I think it should be recosidered. I don't like being called a sockpuppet, because I do try and write articles on various subjects. I wrote many Israeli atricles and I put time and effort into this one, and I want the deletion to be recosidered because if I referenced to articles about this subject it is notable according to the Wikipedia rules. According to WP:CORP, bwitty has been the subject of secondary sources. And those sources are the biggest newspapers in Israel, you can't get more reliable, and independent of the subject. It's not Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject. I saw a few more in-print articles, and I'm quite sure I saw something on the TV at the time. But, I can only reference to what I have online. MyWiseData 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• This may be notable. It was deleted as "Corporate promotion", that is WP:CSD#G11 spam. And the article in the last version before deletion does have rather an advertising flyer tone. Phrases such as "bWitty Notes, allow users to create...", "Notes are saved online, thus allowing users to access them everywhere with Internet access.", "bWitty is compatible with all major web browsers", "WittySearch featured a new complex system of search" evoke the marketer, not the encyclopedist, IMO. Thus it was not unreasonable to delete this as spam, no matter how many references there were. Weak endorse but with no prejudice against recreation in a more encyclopedic tone, and I'll be happy to userfy if so requested. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's possible it needs to be modified, but I can fix it instead of deleting the article. The "Corporate promotion" claim was made before I created the article, it was once deleted (I didn't create the original one) and I re-create it with new information because I think it is notable, it was one of my first articles so it might not be perfect, but it can be fixed. MyWiseData 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Corporate promotion", was the reason given in the deletion log for the final deletion (the only deletion under this exact spelling) which occurred after your edits. The deleting admin apparently thought it applied to the version resulting from your edits, and looking at that version, I can't say this was grossly wrong. Note that there is currently no prohibition on recreation, and as far as I can see, no DRV is required for such a recreation. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So you suggest I recreate the page? I rather feel that the deletion should be undone and then I'll fix the problems with the article. Otherwise, it's kinda useless to create it now. MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, but you may not get support for overturning the deletion. (Indeed so far no one has supported doing so.) Note that I have offered to userfy -- that is, to place a copy of the article as it was just prior to deletion (with all its history) in your userspace, for you to use as a basis for creating a more acceptable article, which could then be moved back into the article space. Still want to push for overturning the deletion first? DES ^(talk) 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you "userfy" this article, and I rewrite it and post it again, why would it now be deleted all over again? Would you mind helping me fixing the article so it will be fit? MyWiseData ^(talk) 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any article can, at any time, be sent to WP:AFD if any editor thinks that it ought to be deleted, even if it has bene kept previously. There a discussion is normally held, to determine whether the aricle will be delted or not. in that discussion, issues such as the notability of the topic, and the degree to which this has been established by Reliable sources are often raised. if you accept userfication I'll be glad to assit you. on the other hand, if this discussion procedes and the article is undelted, it is likely to be listed on Afd fairly propmptly, and it will then be important to fix any problems durign the 5-day course of the Afd discussion. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and list at afd I think it was fixable, so deleting it by speedy to abort an afd was out of order. Deletion was requested as A7, tho it clearly did claim notability. However, it was deleted using A11 , saying "corporate promotion," but g11 is for corporate promotion that can not be reasonably turned into an article. The afd should have been permitted to proceed. The matter seems to have been arguable, so it should have been argued. This is not the place to make decisions about notability. AfD is. 'DGG (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not an unreasonable point of view. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. There is no lack of a full deletion process. This article went through a full AfD as 'BWitty' back in April 2007. It closed as Delete. It just went through a second AfD on 22 July that was speedy closed as Delete. See also log for Bwitty and log for BWitty. Most recently its notability issues were discussed at length at User talk:MyWiseData#Deletion of bWitty. As someone pointed out in the 2nd AfD, BWitty gets less than one hit per day on Alexa; there are about 7 million web sites that are more popular. Take a look at http://www.answers.com/bwitty if you feel it may have been unjustly neglected. I can't tell if the first and second articles were the same (BW versus Bw) because I can't see the first one; however the version now at answers.com does not seem to have third-party references that establish notability. The logs show that one spelling was moved to the other in May, and User:utcursch's name appears in the log because he deleted a redirect. I filled in the AfD pointer in the DRV header above to point to the 'BWitty' AfD since I don't perceive the criticisms raised there have been answered. If you think the articles are substantively different, you can undo this. EdJohnston 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If you look at Answers you see a link to YNET, there you have an article about bwitty that was printed in the Israeli biggest newspaper (Yedioth, and in YNET the biggest Israeli news website. What's more notable than that? Regarding Alexa, their way of measuring popularity is disputed, just lately Nilsen NetRatings changed their system of measuring websites popularity to time spent in page instead of views. Alexa measures US traffic mostly, I think the Israeli market is invisible to Alexa. And in any case, notably it not a popularity contest. MyWiseData ^(talk) 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please let us know if you have found any reliable sources that comment on Bwitty in English. The ynet.co.il reference is in Hebrew, so I can't tell whether it's a passing mention or a full treatment. Also there's nothing in the text of the article at answers.com which indicates that the subject is notable. Simply being an ISP isn't notable by itself. Offering a sticky note application isn't notable if no third party has commented on its signficance, especially if its user base is completely unknown. EdJohnston 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't have English translated articles. On the other hand, most articles about Israeli issues (people & etc.) don't have English backing for them. You can see Galila Ron-Feder Amit, Dana Berger, QText. The latter, it the best important example, every Israeli that had a computer before the Pentium age knows what QText is, but no English speaking person will have any clue. And it QText is not notable, nothing is. Still, I can't find you articles about QText in English. Give me some credit, that I won't refer you to an article in a language you don't speak and tell you it's about something it's not. Look at the pictures in the article, they are from the bWitty wesbite. MyWiseData ^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that supporting references be in English. It is however reasonable to ask for a translation of the key portions. DGG (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As has been pointed out above, Alexa shows that hardly anyone uses this website. Furthermore, this has been through two deletion processes already and only one person is arguing that it should now be restored. I cannot resist commenting that I would be surprised if WP:COI were not at play here in some form. The original deleted entry for bWitty appeared at the same time as the obvious vanity article for Amit Avner, which also sounded like an advertorial. TreveX^talk 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the old article, I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of stuff (from being a sock puppet to WP:COI). I have no connection with the previous articles, and I won't defend them. I can only discuss about my work. MyWiseData ^(talk) 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - my gran's facebook profile gets more hits than this website.[1] Peterharris 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a common phrase used in New Berlin, put it back up! It will catch on. Brian002100 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I disagree that WP:CSD#G1 applied, as the page is perfectly readable, and not gibberish. However, the page unambiguously does not belong in the encyclopedia. WP:CSD#G10 or WP:CSD#G3 would have been better speedy deletion criteria, even though they are each imperfect. GRBerry 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• What is "New Berlin"? Corvus cornix 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Berlin, Wisconsin, incubator of cultural phenomenons it seems. Kuru ^talk 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that hotbed of cultural renaissance. Corvus cornix 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, agreed that it's not technically G1, but closer to WP:CSD#G3. Article and accompanying personal photo were simple graffiti. Kuru ^talk 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please just restore it. Its not hurting you. I will make it appear nice. I have like 20 people working on it that want it restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian002100 (talk • contribs)

I would like to see this page replaced. This quote has become popular in New Berlin, WI and around Milwaukee, WI. If this page does not deserve to be replaced, I believe it should be added to the New Berlin, Wisconsin page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladder123 (talk • contribs)

• Keep deleted per GRBerry and Kuru. -- Gogo Dodo 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Can it be added to the New Berlin, Wisconsin page? (To Gogo Dodo) -- Bladder123 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense - what do you know about the saying "Get in the truck"? Let people use this site the way it was intended.

• I want to oppose, but... This was not a proper speedy, it clearly was not Patent Nonsense, and i don't think any of the other speedy deletion criteria really applied either. But this is so clearly non-notable and non-encyclopedic that in this rare case I have to say that restoring this would truly be an exercise in pointless process. However, I very much wish that the deleting admin had used {{prod}} instead -- this sort of thing is exactly what prod is for, IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hardly. The sockpuppeteer/vandal (whose two accounts have now been blocked) would just have removed the prod tag, and then we'd be stuck with this crap for five days. Corvus cornix 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per the law of inevitable deletion. Really inevitable in this case. --W.marsh 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, yes... it wasn't a G1 but there is no chance this would survive an AFD as an obvious neologism.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion-nonsense. Ratherduarm 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - common sense. ugen64 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if not G1 it's G3, wouldn't come close to surviving an AFD. --Coredesat 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This was originally tagged as an A1 (lacking context). After I mentioned it in a discussion as an example of an over-hasty tagging, ugen64 looked at the article and deleted it under A7. However, I certainly see the article's claim to be a "long running Malaysian television series" that became the basis for three films to be an assertion of notability. Searching Google News Archive turns up 145 hits[2], of which about 115 or so seem to be related to the show or its movies (GK apparently means "special forces" in Malay, so there's an army unit and some other entities). These hits describe GK as popular, a hit, a blockbuster, etc. If these claims of popularity can be debunked, it should be at an AfD; the subject passes the A7 threshold. So, overturn. Groggy Dice T | C 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn It passes A7, for one thing, there is no provision to use A7 for movie series (or other creative works). Whether or not the series is notable is a question for AfD. DGG (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was not an A1 (it had content), and as DGG says it had at least an assertion of significance, plus A7 simply soent' apply to TV sereis, movies, books, or other such creatice content. DES ^(talk) 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - A1 has nothing to do with content, just context. If you want, this one can be Relisted on AFD where it will probably fail (for example a search for "Gerak Khas" movie -wikipedia comes up with less than 1000 Google hits). ugen64 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is one of those cases where Google is giving funky results. If you search for "gerak khas" movie with wikipedia, you will get around 400 hits. In theory, then, "gerak khas" movie should give around 1400 hits. In fact, you get around 10,000. If you search for "gerak khas" movie OR television, you should be guaranteed more hits than searching for movie alone, but in fact the number shrinks to 900 hits. Given this weird behavior, I trust the News Archive results more. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason why "Gerak Khas" Wikipedia gets a lot of hits is because there are other references to "Gerak Khas" on Wikipedia and related pages (for example, Grup Gerak Khas). Also, you will notice if you go all the way to the end, that there are only 365 unique Google hits for "Gerak Khas" movie, because the original number of over 10,000 includes duplicate hits. ugen64 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and possibly relist. Yet another abuse of speedy deletion. Evouga 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn if the matter needs argument, Afd is the place to do so. Speedy is only for incontestable deletions. ugen64 may be right, but Afd is where he should be making the argument. DGG (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  You already said that. See above at 18:05. Picaroon (Talk) 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, the article asserted notability, even if it wouldn't appear to be much. A7 if for where there is no assertion at all. Picaroon (Talk) 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn- clearly A7 is not appropriate here. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (EastEnders storylines nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - yes, it is true that more people wanted the articles kept than deleted. However, AFD is not a vote. The arguments offered by the keepers do not address the cut-and-dried WP:PLOT policy violations of these articles. The 2000s article was AFDed and closed no consensus with the only argument saving it being that the article would be brought into compliance with policy. This editing didn't happen and in fact no editing happened on the article at all. The "we didn't have enough time" and the "we need the articles to write better articles" arguments should not save the articles, as the content can be userfied rather than left in article space until such time as the editors have time to bring it into compliance. The only other argument for keeping the articles, that the articles are part of an overall approach to the series and that having the massive plot articles is better than having individual articles on every episode of the soap opera, not only puts forth a dilemma that doesn't exist (there does not appear to be any interest in writing individual articles for each episode) and ignores the black and white statement of WP:PLOT which specifies that a plot summary may be appropriate as part of an overview of the work but not as a separate article. The "overall approach" argument has been soundly rejected for separate plot summary articles for everything from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Les Miserables to All My Children and the argument is no better here. Closing admin, while acknowledging that AFD is not a vote count, still did a bit of vote counting but also stated that editing could take care of policy concerns. I strongly disagree and, given that the strongest advocate of keeping the articles is not editing the existing articles but is instead starting over from scratch, the policy concern of WP:PLOT is not overcome by the possibility of editing (which is not being done). The necessary work was not done to save the articles, the policy concerns override the majority and the keep arguments do not answer the blatant policy violations. Otto4711 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin. I agree on the merits with Otto, but do not think a "delete" close would have been acceptable here. AfD closers generally only override consensus when the core policies V, NPOV and NOR are violated, because these policies are not subject to amendment by consensus. This is not the case with WP:NOT#PLOT. Additionally, the PLOT concerns can conceivably be addressed by merging, which does not require deletion. See also the prior discussion at my talk. Sandstein 13:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Sandstein's reasoning makes sense. --W.marsh 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The matter is not quite as well settled as Otto says, as the opinion in disagreement on the AfD make evident. Nor has the "overall content argument" been decisively rejected -- there were other arguments in each case, and, in each case, the final decision was not overwhelming. But he does say , correctly, that there has been an inconsistency in the results of AfD. This issue needs a wider discussion. Everything considered, the close was as appropriate as the closes in the other direction. DGG (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a single AFD for a plot summary article, other than these and its fellow EastEnders article Who Shot Phil? (which actually had work done on it unlike this one), that has survived AFD? Every instance has resulted in either deletion or merger; none but these have survived. Has the overall context argument ever been accepted, or any other AFD in which it has been advanced, closed with a keep? Because I'm not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the argument against plot summary articles hasn't been settled when every other unimproved plot summary article has ended with a deletion (or in a single instance, a questionable merge).
• As an aside, assuming that the closure is endorsed, is there some sort of timeframe where, if and when these articles are not improved, the "we need more time" arguments will be discounted? I, obviously, would have thought that a month with no activity would have been enough but apparently not. Otto4711 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete No compelling argument was made in the AfD other than that of overall context and "we need more time". WP:NOT#PLOT is policy. --Phirazo 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I opined to delete in the AFD - "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article." WP:NOT#PLOT Seems cut and dry to me. Corpx 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse This is not the place to make policy. There's obvious disagreement on the matter, and the place to debate it is at Afd, and that was done. If someone thinks that all plot articles should be deleted, this is not the place to show it. If someone thinks it is not being improved, the place to discuss that is Afd, in a reasonable amount of time after the first afd. I suggest 3 months. DGG (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not vote twice. I've struck your second vote through. Sandstein 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• It hardly seems reasonable to try to cast a quoting of policy as an attempt to make policy. Otto4711 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is this a new discussion? It isn't advertised on the article(s) themselves, which hardly seems fair. Stephenb (Talk) 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed. I added an DRV notice to the three affected articles. --Phirazo 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DJ-Kicks: Tiga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted by User:Philippe with no reason given in the deletion log. After discussing it on his talk page it seems that he deleted it because he felt it wasn't notable or didn't assert notability, but this isn't a valid reason to delete an article about a music album; csd a7 doesn't cover albums. P4k 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• List on AFD - I could see the argument for CSD A7 but I tend to agree with your argument here. ugen64 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't undertand why you are claiming that there was no reason given in the deletion log, when it clearly says "{{db-spam}}". Corvus cornix 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD It does not seem to be any more of an advertisement than most sarticles about albums. DGG (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Corvus cornix, read the discussion on Phillippe's talk page where he states that he deleted it because of notability concerns. My initial assumption was that he deleted it because of spam, but apparently that wasn't the case. You can call that tag a "reason" if you want, but it's not why the article was deleted.--P4k 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist; yet another misuse of A7. Evouga 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn The deletion log would lead one to believe this was deleted as spam - it was surely tagged as spam. It is basically a factual (or allegedly factual I haven't verified) description of an album, with the only possible puffery being a mention that critics have praised aspects of it. But that is just the kind of "reaction" info we often ask for in articles about creative works such as albums, books, and films. The deleting admin says here "I deleted it because I saw no notability in the article. It appears to be one article by an artist with no assertion of notability." That would be WP:CSD#A7 no where mentioned or implied in the deletion log. But in the first place, A7 doesn't apply to albums; in the second, "Tiga has been praised by critics by using his mixing skills in this compilation" would be an assertion of significance if A7 did apply; in the third place, the link to the apparently notable DJ-Kicks series would at least suggest notability for this element of the series; in the fourth place, the link to Tiga (musician), where it says the artist is "widely known for his remixes" would also at least suggest notability. DES ^(talk) 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sting II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I can't see why this was deleted. There's no explanation in the deletion log, I can't find an AFD, and the deleting admin has retired. What little of its content I can see looks legit. Father Goose 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Re-create You don't want the old version back, it was a one-sentence wonder that got nearly every fact wrong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• All right, thank you.--Father Goose 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I admit this wasn't notable a year ago, but it is now, and it is easy to cite sources for it as well. It's been a year, and now it's been on MSNBC News. Infact, everyone I know on the internet has heard of it. It's even been in a New York Times article recently. Duarm3300 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• In this particualr case, can you give us some of the citations that you think establish notability? given the history here, this is going to be a tough case. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note that this was closed by Starblind and then reopened by Duarm. I recommend speedy reclosing since the NYT article was a Wikipedia article that mentioned ED in passing as an example of a Wikipedia-attack site. Duarm is a self-described "ED troll" who is very close to being banned. JoshuaZ 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Since we are having a useful discussion and many sources have been presented, I'm changing simply to endorse closure the sources appear to be trivial, but we do have enough such that a full DRV discussion is not unreasonable. JoshuaZ 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious speedy endorse deletion, no significant new information, blatant trolling by nominator. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, for the 43rd time. If you can provide a reliable source about the site, then I'll change my opinion. But you can't, because such a reliable source does not exist. I tried really hard to find one 7 renominations ago. No success. -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn, I made it weak because I'd be called a troll/sock if I didn't. Anyway, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Toronto Sun, Ottawa Sun, MSNBC, Spiegal, La Press Affairs and the New York Times are enough sources to make something notable, even if they are just mentions: that is as many as Wookieepedia. Ratherduarm 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are surely relaible sources. Could you provide links or at least cites to soem of the references? DES ^(talk) 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Google News has no hits. I just browsed through the first 100 hist (of about 850) on a basic google search for "Encyclopædia Dramatica -Wikipedia" and found lots of blogs, lots of Digg entries, lots of Wordpress and livejournal entries, one Conservopedia, a few other open wikis. Nothing that looked off-hand like a reliable source. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Look up "encyclopedia dramatica-youtube" or something, that has a mirror of theMSNBC mention. Eight mentions worldwide seems notable to me. Ratherduarm 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Not obviously. I don't think it unreasonable, particularly in this case, to ask those suggeting undeletion to provide direct links or cites. DES ^(talk) 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • No luck with the sugested search or any of several varients. no luck with a google search limited to the MSNBC site. No significant relable sources found or provided to date. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • It's on YouTube, not the MSNBC site. It's on google video also. Ratherduarm 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1 has some. The NYT can be found at User talk:SchmuckyTheCat. Ratherduarm 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not going to get undeleted without prior approval from the ArbCom, so there's no point in even continuing this discussion until such a time. Corvus cornix 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That has been discussed before-ArbCom does not prohibit an article about it. They don't judge content anyway. Ratherduarm 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If sources can be cited that unquestionably establish notability, i think the arbcom ruling would be obsolete, and i would be willing to create an article under those conditions. But given the history, i am not talking about marginal or trivial mentions. If I see in-depth coverage from multiple major media sources, then I think an article would be warranted. i haven't seem them yet. [3] is the only mention I found in a reliable source following the links above, and i think it is pretty close to 'trivial". DES ^(talk) 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You think all the mentions in relation to the RF Jason craigslist experiment are trivial? They are definitely reliable sources. Ratherduarm 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I think one specific link, whcih i cited, is trival coverage. i think that if there is non-trivial coverage in clearly reliabel sources, no-one has linked to it in this discussion yet, and i haven't seen it. DES ^(talk) 02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Request Schmucky to do it. I'm not going to waste my time digging out urls. Ratherduarm 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You undelete this, and there will be an edit war like you would not believe. There should NOT be an article about these slugs until they remove all of the nasty pages about Wikipedia editors. Nathandotcom, MONGO, Zoe, I don't know how many editors, have attack pages there. We should not even be discussing this. Corvus cornix 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • This is an encyclopedia not a charity case, what does that have to do with anything? --MichaelLinnear 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • "These slugs" is a personal attack. Stop. Besides, Wikitruth has nasty pages about Wikipedia editors. Ratherduarm 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Wikitruth at least claims to be there to make constructive criticism of Wikipedia. ED is strictly there to hurt people's feelings, to cause trouble, and to get reactions out of people. There is no redeeming social value for ED whatsoever. And if it quacks like a slug, smells like a slug, and leaves a trail of slime like a slug, it's a slug. Corvus cornix 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • ED claims to be a parody site. You seem to hate ED more than MONGO does, Corvus, what is your grudge? Ratherduarm 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • You say "We should not even be discussing this." I don't see that there is any potential article that ought to be off-limits for discussion. WP:NOT#CENSORED. Mind you, i don't expect to see the kind of clear-cut evidence of notability that wotuld warrent an articel, based on what I have found so far. But if it is out there, adn is cited, then i think we ought to have an article, attack pages or not. But only If. DES ^(talk) 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Making disgusting claims about minors such as Sceptre is not parody. It's character assassination Corvus cornix 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Which has nothing to do with an article, which is the matter at question here. Please stay on topic Corvus cornix. --MichaelLinnear 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oy vey, let's quit moving comments over a space for now. Ratherduarm 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyway, look at the links provided at User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1. You can fidn reliable sources there. As for Corvus, shut the hell up. Ratherduarm 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • All of those sources are either passing mentions (trivial), or unreliable (blogs are not reliable sources). You are cautioned to be civil in this discussion. --Coredesat 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Still no non-trivial sources provided for this to demonstrate notability.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't a mention on TV worth something? Ratherduarm 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Has everyone forgotten about this DRV? Ratherduarm 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, a mention by itself is not. n mentions for large n is not enough. We need multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. Otherwise we will not be able to write much without doing original research. JoshuaZ 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Isn't the Jason Fortuny case notable? It's mentioned in enough notable places to make an article about ED easy to provide sources for. I wonde rwhy everyone is so biased. Ratherduarm 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • That's an argument to mention or note it in the Fortuny article, not to write an article about ED. (I would incidentally support a mention in the Fortuny article). Also a bit of advice: accusing people of bias is not going to make anyone more inclined to agree with you. If anything it will cause the opposite in fact. JoshuaZ 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom Ratherduarm just sent me an e-mail saying this was put on DRV by someone else with "duarm" in their name...anyway, I know many sources for this, all the newspapers and notable blogs (such as Wired or MSNBC news) would count. The Fortuny thing can be sourced, and the site seems overall notable. I'm not going to be like my friend Ratherduarm and respond to Corvus cornix, he wants to keep it deleted so that WP can be a charity case, not an encyclopedia. Fivebytwo 04:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, fivebytwo, won't be responding to him anymore. Ratherduarm 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, could you explain what you mean by a "charity case"? Corvus cornix 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn while their slimey tactics writing about admins here are deplorable (they skewered me too), they have received significant media coverage since the last time this was broached at DRV. As much as I hate to say it, I think they have some merit basis for an article now.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly keep deleted per JoshuaZ, most media coverage consists of the media having been trolled, or passing mentions (it has been established that the MSNBC segment was not about ED itself). Nothing has changed since the last several times this was put on DRV; it's yet another user claiming that sources exist, but not presenting them and allowing for them to be checked for their non-triviality and reliability. --Coredesat 05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until these mythical reliable sources are actually produced, per Coredesat. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I could write a good article about this with sixteen reliable sources. If we wrote an article about it, it would include something about Jason Fortuny, and that part could be easily sourced. For now, we should allow a new article, an over time, we'll try to develp an article from the many reliable sources that have been found. Moar mudkipz 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lets examine the suggested sources for ED (I include all the non-blog sources that I have been pointed to in the debate above, unless I have missed one when the link was to an entire archive page. If there are others, lets see the exact cites, please):
  • Observer Magazine] June 5, 2005
    • Reliable source, but coverage is trivial
  • "You keep using thatr word"
    • Blog, coverage trivial
  • Wadhiongton Post online January 20, 2006
    • Reliable source, but mentions ED only indirectly via a link, the site name is not so much as used, and the article is not about the site in any way. Coverage is sub-trivial.
  • Ottowa sun "Finding Emo"
    • Reliabel source, Link dead, story may be available for a fee
  • Toronto sun "Emo-tional rescue" September 3, 2006
    • Reliable source, Link dead, Story now available only for a $12 fee
  • \Speiegel Online "Vorsicht beim virtuellen Striptease" 11 September 2006
    • Story is in German. Based on machine translation, does not appear to mention ED
  • la presse affaires 11 September 2006
    • Story is in French. Appears to be a reliable source. Based on my (limited) knowledge of french, backed by machine no mention of ED by name, and no link to ED.
• In short i see no indepth reliable coverage yet. DES ^(talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion per Cordesat. ElinorD (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn-DESiegel must not have looked carefully. The Spiegel and La Press Affaires articles do mention ED, and are definitely relibale sources. Seven newspapers and one TV news station, all of which are reliable, seem good enough to make this notable. CornuSinistru 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)sock of Fivebytwo (talk · contribs)
• Endorse Deletion Again, unless notability-asserting sources are produced. I  ^{(said) (did)} 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the sources brought forth are sufficient to justify a discussion. this is not the place to argue about the sufficiency of sources, let alone accuracy of translation. AfD is. all we need do is eee if there s enough of a case to warrant sending it there, and there clearly is. DGG (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• COI speedy endorse - the subject has been banned by ArbCom. Will ^(talk) 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Arbcom has prohibited links to ED. There is no prohibition on an article on the topic. In fact, such a statement was discussed in the workshop and the ArbCom decided not to make such a deicision. JoshuaZ 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. All sources cited contain trivial mentions only or the links are dead. Until there is non-trival coverage in reliable sources that can be used to demonstrate the notability of "Encyclopædia Dramatica", this article should remain deleted. WjBscribe 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Of course. ED is an outting and attack site and links to the website back onto Wikipedia are banned by the arbitration committee.[4] A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.[5]. Wikipedia is not in the business of aiding and abetting those have edited a website of very circumspect notability and enagages in harassment of our editors. Speedy close this effort as it was started by a banned editor.--MONGO 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The linking matter is irrelevant. whether or not something is an attack site which we cannot link to should not be relevant to whether we can write an article about it. Indeed, if something is notable we should be able to write an article about it without linking to it at all. JoshuaZ 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Since it seems other admins and users intend to wheel war my earlier closure of this DRV, I'll simply endorse deletion. A few trivial passing mentions do not instantly convey notability upon ED; combined with the ArbCom ruling which strongly denounces ED-related content, the issue should not be revisited at this moment in time. Krimpet 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Trivial passing mentions don't establish notability. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I note, having read it, that the Arbitration Committee decision does not prohibit an article on this topic. It prohibits links to the site. If the topic is truly notable, then we can have an article on it without using it as a reference or linking to it at all. The best evidence for that would be a well sourced draft in userspace - none of those is presented. Alternatively, good sourcing could be presented. DES has done a persuasive analysis of the evidence presented to date, and it is not adequate to write a verifiable article. Keep deleted until there are independent and reliable sources to support an article. GRBerry 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deleton I had this closed almost immediately, but it looks like it's been re-opened. Given the extremely bad history here, i think we'd need to see a working draft of what a well-referenced article on this topic would look like before further discussion is appropriate. Per analysis of the "sources", such an article is not possible at this time. I'd also want ArbCom to clarify whether the Mongo ruling implies that such an article shouldn't exist or not. I think it does. In any case, definitely endorse deletion, no article possible at this time due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to set up a working draft. Also, MONGO shouldn't be allowed to vote, and neither should hardcore EDers (I only edit that site occasionally) CornuSinistru 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody -- MONGO, ED users, and everyone else who has an opinion on the matter -- is invited to add their input to Wikipedia debates and discussions, as long as they stay civil and obey our policies and guidelines while doing so. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Krimpet 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reliable sources. No reason to create this article again unless there are reliable sources that do more than mention ED in passing. Ral315 » 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Will you be more likely to restore if I make a working draft using reliable outside sources? CornuSinistru 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, that certainly would help. However, please note that the sources already presented have been shown to be unacceptable for various reasons (see above): unless you have others that actually support an article, don't bother. If you get stuck or need help, I'm open to discussion on my talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you create such a draft, i for one would be very interested in seeing it. Note that I, at least, will be looking for in-depth coverage, sources that actually discuss the ED site, not merely mention it in passing, or mention online events that were referred to on the site, or online acts by people who also edit the site. If a draft citing in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources is really created, I'll argue for its place in article space. I'll believe such a draft when i see it, though. I'll be quite willing to comment on incomplete versions of such a draft, and provide suggestions, if I am asked. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • CNN mentioned "Jews did WTC", that's an internet meme very commonly referred to on ED. I can write a reliable, well-sourced article even using the above references. The Uncyclopedia article isn't completely sourced from places focusing entirely on it. Basically, the above sources all seem reliable. CornuSinistru 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Please remember, a notable Internet meme may well be commented on or embraced by lots of non-notable people or sites. if CNN did not actually mention ED, it is not of value as a source here. The Law of Gravity is highly notable, but that does not make the many introductory physics sites that discuss it notable. In this case, given the history, you are going to need an iron-clad case to have a chance. Sources need not "focus entirely" on ED, but they will, IMO, need to devote significant attention directly to ED, by name, not by referring to events that are also referred to on ED. DES ^(talk) 21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Isn't eight major news publications, all of which mention ED (except the Washington Poat one, which still refers to it and is a reliable source) enough for you? Why do you have such a grudge? My scrotum is itching. CornuSinistru 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I have no grudge here -- I have consistently argued against blanket or automatic bans on links to sites, much less article about sites, But for any web site there ought to be more than sources that "mention" it, and in this specific case, given the attack-page issue, if notability is not incontestably established, there is no way an argument for an article about this site can succeed. I don't want to descend to personalities, but you do need to distinguish between opponents and principled supporters. I now plan wait in making any further comments until I see a plausible draft article, or at least new any plausible source citations. Do whatever you please about the matter. DES ^(talk) 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion appropriate deletion. --Tbeatty 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you're vote doesn't count. You didn't give a reason. CornuSinistru 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Luckily it's not a vote. And doubly lucky that you aren't the person determining consensus. But the AfD followed process and there is no reason to overturn it. --Tbeatty 23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Fivebytwo (talk · contribs) = CornuSinistru (talk · contribs) = Howeltead (talk · contribs) admitted. Votestacking is not permitted, so I've struck out CornuSinistru's vote above. — Scientizzle 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorese deletion per DES. — Scientizzle 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do not undelete without clear-cut evidence of solid notability, significantly better than what has been presented to date. But do not prevent the creation of a draft in userspace, if anyone wishes to try to create a well-sourced article, and do not prevent discussion if such a draft is later presented for review. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with that... — Scientizzle 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)