On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee arromdee@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 The [[Citizendium]] and [[Conservapedia]] articles are cases in point - the articles are now patchy and outdated, and anyone looking those up in hope of finding out "so whatever happened with those?"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.