On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
Summary: This site is a controversial site that is
often considered an attack
site, but we have an article about it anyway. The site shut down and the
users of the old site restarted it at a different location. Wikipedia has
decided that site should be considered defunct and the new site ignored
because 1) the new site is for harassment and we shouldn't link to harassment
(even though the same is true of the old site, yet we have an article about
it), 2) the new site is a copyright violation of the old site and we're
not supposed to link to copyright violations (even though the claim that it
is a copyright violation is based on selectively using one of two
contradictory copyright notices from the old site), and 3) we have no reliable
source claiming the two sites are the same.
The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage.
It's not clear it's sustainable either - the original ED was barely
financially viable with wall-to-wall porn ads, what the current one
runs on is unknown.
I would suggest that we can wait for verifiable third-party coverage
and we don't need an article tomorrow.
I do take your broader point, though: when we have things that were
notable for a while and now get little to no coverage, there's very
little to base updated coverage on. The [[Citizendium]] and
[[Conservapedia]] articles are cases in point - the articles are now
patchy and outdated, and anyone looking those up in hope of finding
out "so whatever happened with those?" will not have that question
answered.
- d.