Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (4th nomination)

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. You have been trolled. MER-C 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia[edit]

Not nearly as notable as the deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica. ED is Good 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Easily passes notability per WP:WEB, multiple non-trivial sources. Not to mention that "not as notable as X" isn't a reason for deletion. This seems like a bad-faith nomination by someone who's mad that ED was deleted and wants to take out other articles in retaliation. --Minderbinder 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established during the last couple of rounds of deletion voting. WP:WEB has not changed significantly in this time, nor has Lostpedia's notability waned. -Dr Haggis - Talk 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: we've been through this before, quite recently. whilst i personally think ED is notable enough to warrant an article, that is a separate argument, and this also strikes me as a bad faith nomination. --Kaini 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable site mentioned in at least five news articles. Tulane97 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has half as many articles as ED, and it was started nine months afterwards, yet ED is still deleted. Not very notable, and is Lost fancrap (in my opinion, Lost sucks and is gay) Lulzy D. 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock/meatpuppet? --Minderbinder 12:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia where the nominator wiped out the original discussion. I've restored it and moved the new discussion here. --Minderbinder 12:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination not based on policy. If previous 3 nominations didn't get this deleted, the nominator has to share some particularly strong arguments to warrant yet another discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.