Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.png This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?
Padlock.jpg


   
 
The article on Encyclopedia Dramatica will not be recreated. Ever.
 

 
 

Sceptre

How the faggotry starts.
TOW admin Hu12 on ED

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica is a hoary old TOW classic. It is an annual ritual for butthurt Wikipedos to cry a river over the fact that ED routinely exposes the fact that TOW employs pedophiles (Erik Möller) and convicted felons (Carolyn Doran) to run Jimbo's empire of information control. The amount of bawing is the leading cause of Global Warming due to the massive amount of methane gas that is emitted during the AfD flame waring that inevitably ensues.

Modus Operandi[edit]

ED vs Uncy? TKO.

Logic[edit]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is a popular website that has existed on the Internets for over 4 years and has been referenced multiple times in a variety of media. It also has a higher Alexa ranking than similar sites that Wikipedia covers, like (Wikia owned) Uncyclopedia.

The Draft[edit]

A Wikipedian starts a subpage stub on Encyclopedia Dramatica (or Encyclopædia Dramatica) and the usual suspects dogpile on the poor user (or admin) and attempt to get the subpage deleted.

The Article[edit]

However, on occasion, a hero will arise and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by moving the article into 'circulation' as a bona fide article while the faggotry rages over the subpage.

The Obligatory Automatic AfD[edit]

Sceptre voices his concerns regarding TOW's NPOV policy.

Page Locked Down[edit]

Pending any actual decision on the fate of the article, the page gets locked from everyone, (including 'trusted users') by a TOW admin so noone can alter it...for example raidfags from Uncyclopedia.

The 'Debate'[edit]

TOW getting pwnt by æ.
Typical TOW admin argument in an ED AfD.

This is where the real lulz start.

 
 
bloody hell - can we GO three days without an ED debate? can we?
 

 

—Random832 (contribs) 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Delete - judging by the sources currently available, while it's a long list it's a very shallow one. I don't feel the current selection of sources is enough to establish notability, and the large focus ED has on Wikipedia makes it seem too much like naval-gazing on our part when wikipedia doesn't even care what EDiots think. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Large focus? According to their own category page, the two specific-to-Wiki categories contain 402 pages. The 4chan category contains 518. DeviantART has 419. Furries has 508. Memes 563. There are 2192 pages in the People category, some of which may be about Wikipedia editors, but definitely not all of them. So your argument of how ED's "large focus" on Wikipedia equating to "navel-gazing" is ignorant and utterly wrong. Howa0082 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Category "Faggotry" has 560. --Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That category could use some expansion. Celarnor Talk to me 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • So this is a hobbyist website concerning the making of stick bundles? I confess that through my keep arguments, I've never been to the site...but I do like stick bundles...perhaps after work I shall take a gander. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Is this the longest AfD evar? Also, I think it (and the history of ED's AFDs) is notable enough for its own article.

--Piepie (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


In this morality play, Running, who had taken the bare bones of Shii's (a TOW admin) subpage draft of an article and created an ED page, returns it into the realm of other things that don't exist at TOW so users can at least work on upgrading the {{stub}}.


Comment - to inform everyone, I write about it also here - I made another copy of the article to my userspace, so WP editors can edit the article (and making it better) instead of just talking about it. (just look how long this discussion is) - User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica --Have a nice day. Running 23:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Question: Am I going to get b& if I try and work on it? Shii is an admin here afaik and his subpage on ED was baleeted. --Piepie (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It was, after one of last AfD, but you are certainly not going to be banned. In worst case, the page will be deleted. --Have a nice day. Running 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Such is the atmosphere of fear and loathing that surrounds any reference to ED around here that people do develop paranoia, sometimes to great extremes, about doing anything even vaguely related to it in fear of getting retaliated against somehow. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
BAAWWWWW

AfD discussions regarding ED tend to get emotionally charged and tempers will flare. They will range from the ridiculous "NO U!"s of prissy church ladies...


 
 
DELETE Must I explain to you exactly how this site sexually humiliates our editors? I did not want to post here with the terrorist sympathizers, but you forced my hand. Many of their latest articles attack our admin corp. I won't link to it because as of right now it is lesser known, since no one really reads ED anymore because they have realised that doing so aligns them with cyberterrorists. Does that make you feel good? Aiding and abetting sexual humiliation and cyber stalking? Or are you under the impression that a free encyclopedia just builds itself, regardless of whether or not we have editors? I am part of the silent majority and our voice will be heard. If that offends you in some way, I suggest you take a deep look into your soul and find out if you have any empathy for another living, breathing human being. Are you one of these "free speech" nutcases that thinks it is ok to deface the Virgin Mary with excrement or something? Because that is what Encyclopedia Dramatica amounts to.
 

 

—The Voice Of Your Heart (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 
 
Comment. Being an atheist, I don't really care about someone defacing the Virgin Mary with excrement or something. Besides, your arguments are like copied from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
 

 

—Running 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Treatment for butthurt and hot air inhalation was necessary for many wikipedos.
 
 
Sorry, you're calling people who write for that site TERRORISTS? If you present a reasonable rationale for the removal of an article, ED will take it down. I am, actually, one of those "free speech nutcases" that believes people have the right to say what they will without religious fanatics like yourself telling me I'm a hateful sinner for not believing in Jesus and behaving like a "good Christian." What the hell kind of argument was that, anyway? And quite frankly, the articles on some of the admin are healthy to have. Sure, they're crude, rude, and lewd. But you know, I like knowing that some admin are the scariest power-mongers to ever grace the internet. Keeps me from running afoul of them, and I can keep contributing to Wikipedia in peace. Plus, it's funny. If you don't think it's funny, don't read it, for the love of Ducks. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we can't have it. This article is a Keeper
 

 

—Howa0082 (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


...to the LOL WUT...


It is inevitable.


 
 
Procedural keep - come back in a few weeks
 

 

Sceptre (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


...to the sublime of logical thought.


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

 

— Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


pwnt.
ED vs Wikipedia.jpg


 
 
You fuckers got me out of retirement for this vote. Keep just because we hate something doesnt mean we delete it. Else we'd not have Hitler or Dahmer articles (yes thats right I Godwinned this bitch). Trivial coverage in one source ok i'd buy that argument if that was the only source... but trivial coverage in 15 sources, and an in depth article or two from a few is more than sufficient bar to pass for notability purposes. Find me non trivial coverage of the president of Lesotho oh wait you cant do that either... Seriously way to ruin any potential historical use of this site in 50 years. This is the shit that made me leave.
 

 

—ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)



 
 
Keep - I've found plenty of articles on topics that I'd imagine 70+% of the human population wouldn't even care about, and most of them can be found via Random Article. If we have an article on Burford Bulldogs (whose only source leads to a 404 error), then why can't we have an article on ED? Honestly, this bad blood most wikipedos have towards ED is ridiculous. I spend a lot of time reading and editing BOTH ED and Wikipedia. After reading the articles on ED about Wikipedia's dark, disgusting, and rather shady depths, I became quite disillusioned and decided to avoid dealing with anything major on Wikipedia beyond simple spelling fixes and the like, but it's things like this AfD nomination that make me crawl out of hiding and wield my logichammer. In rebuttal to the lack of sources (the only valid delete argument I see here), I direct everyone to that Burford Bulldogs stub, which has only ONE source link which is broken. If ED goes, then so should that stub and others like it. Fucking ridiculous.
 

 

—InvaderJim42 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)



 
 
Keep. This is obviously all about wanting to delete a page because we don't like the people it's about. Well, guess what? We have Osama bin Laden. Look, anybody arguing that ED is not notable is making a nonsense argument, it has been mentioned in mainstream press. I think those among us who cannot laugh at our own ED pages (assuming we have them) have forgotten that life isn't always a serious endeavor. If somebody were to create a page for me saying something along the lines of "Node_ue is a faggot Wikipedo who is too obsessed with things he knows nothing about, such as Moldova or languages", I wouldn't be upset. That is because I understand the true intention of ED, which is lulz, not being mean and attacking people. It is intended for humor, even if it's a bit mean-spirited. If we can't laugh at ourselves, then we are already dead inside.
 

 

—Node (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


And finally...


 
 
Comment: I feel at this point ED could have entire articles dedicated to it on CNN, and be one of the most popular websites of all time, and the decision will still be to delete it just because WP:IHATEIT is going to be ignored, and people are going to let their own prejudices get in the way of completing the encyclopedia. As many others said, this is why a good deal of people left the project in the first place, and I hate to agree, but I do.
 

 

—HALtalk 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


The Conclusion[edit]

Inevitably, the article gets baleeted and the status quo is preserved: in the myopic world of Jimbo, certain things just don't exist. And even if those things happen to meet TOW's rigid, arcane standards of 'notability', having been sauced multiple times by the good ole fashioned newspaper, they still may not qualify as being part of the all human knowledge TOW purports to catalogue.

The Irony[edit]

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! TOW faggotry exposed!
 
 
Abstain. I'm a project participant with four years under my belt. I'm editing from a proxy for fear of retribution. This whole ED vs Wikipedia thing has become so ridiculous, those in favor of keeping will soon get an article in a national newspaper as per this (see ED:Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica) if this exclusionist nonsense keeps playing out. Get over your biases everyone.
 

 

—--91.143.81.107 (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


A major national newspaper will pick up on this article and do a David vs Goliath story on ED vs TOW. That article will then become the main source of "notability" that TOW requires (occasionally). And even if this doesn't happen, ED wins because the ED vs TOW battle exposes how fundamentally flawed TOW's arcane and inane policies are and what a bunch of cry baby hypocrites Wikipedians are.

The Conclusion: Part II[edit]

Even the sadfuck admins were getting in on the act.

As of May 21, 2008, ED has found a home back on TOW. In a surprising turn of logic, a few wikipedo admins decided it was time for ED to be recognized as notable. Again. Of course, by doing this it only makes ED even moar notable, and further exemplifies the extreme mental retardation so common amongst the previous TOW admins who denied it coverage.

Take note that the Encyclopedia Article is one of the most sauce-heavy stubs on TOW.(Citation needed)

See Also[edit]

External Links[edit]

Wikipedia series.jpg

Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica is part of a series on

Wikipedia

Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.


Featured article May 26, 2008
Preceded by
LaraLove
Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica Succeeded by
Dongcopter