Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slender Man (2nd nomination)

Slender Man

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically an article on a "meme" sourced to the source of the meme itself. It is not notable, and having one single article discuss it (more tongue-in-cheek than anything) does not make for notability. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I didn't see in the history that it had already been nominated once, and I see why I didn't see it: the consensus was delete. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussion in just one reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability, and especially not sufficient to support extensive content that isn't discussed in that source. This article relies on primary sources such as blogs and user-edited fan sites to support discussion of this "meme" far beyond the description in the single reliable source. It seems that the intent of the authors of this article is to publicize and legitimize this non-notable meme, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it has been Confirmed by Know Your Meme, OhInternet, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and has three ARGs, and has four blogs devoted to it, let alone mentioning it. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO WORK WITH?!?!?!?!?!?! The person who nommed this must have been temporarily idiotic at the time. - Another n00b (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You cite ED as a source. Interesting. Well, maybe at ED your language is acceptable as well. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now, I'll challenge the assertion that it is inherently non-notable. I'm also looking up more sourcing possibilities. I'll weigh in more when it's not 2:30 AM. Thanks, bye. Cougar Draven (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one asserted, AFAIK, that it is inherently non-notable. I look forward to reliable sources establishing notability (not Encyclopedia Dramatica, of course). Drmies (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - God. If you'll excuse my language, 'fuck' no not Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever they've turned themselves into. And I've been searching for two days now for another appropriate source. I'll be honest, if this article loses out in the end, I won't lose sleep over it, as I've already got it archived completely for re-introduction when some reliable source writes an article. Cougar Draven (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, now then. Resubmitting. Keep, as there are two reliable, non-OR sources to be had. I've seen articles survive on much less. This is a notable internet phenomenon, perhaps more polarizing than, say, Nyan Cat, but just as visible. (And, for the record, though I know this is a point neither for or against, but "Nyan Cat" has 14.9 million results on Google. "Slender Man" has 24.8 million. Indeed, the primary source for that page is also KYM.) Also, per WP:FICTION, perhaps the article could be rewritten to focus more on the creation and implementation of the Slender Man. Also, this may just be speculation here, but this seems like an embryonic discussion. Internet-based (YouTube specifically, but not limited therein, of course) episodic films are generally a new thing. At least, dramatic ones, so far as I know. If anyone can fill me in on any others, I'm all ears. Basically, this is a new thing, and Wikipedia doesn't have any content policies for it yet. Speaking of Marble Hornets: it could be a film, it could be a television series. Which it is depends on who you're talking to. Either way, the internet content platform is something that Wikipedia is unsure of. It ascribes non-notability to things automatically based on where they are released, and honestly, I'd like to see it changed. At the core of my argument: if Nyan Cat and Philip DeFranco can have pages, then so can Slender Man, and, eventually, Marble Hornets (which may have been a better choice to begin with). Cougar Draven (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is an article detailing extremely prolific character of the internet and has spawned hundreds of ARGs and similar mediums based around the character. I really don't see how it's non-notable. Mack ^{(Yackity Mack)} 08:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, it appears to fail the general notability guideline, which applies to fictional characters, as well. While I appreciate sites like ED (or whatever it is now) and KYM, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable sourcing. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have to agree that this article lacks suitable citations needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Blogs are typically unsuitable, per WP:USERGENERATED. I was unable to find more reliable citations. Hence, I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article most certainly deserves to be kept here. Those of you stating that this article needs to be deleted clearly haven't bothered to read the stories and watch the videos created around this character. If this article is going to be deleted, then all the others surrounding fictional characters might as well be also. The Slender Man has spawned a huge internet following and it's ridiculous that we're even having this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.13.186 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There seems to be a bias in wikipedia against internet phenomena...people don't seem to think they're "proper" enough for Wikipedia, and experience that same sort of vicarious embarrassment when one brings up 4chan in meatspace. It belongs, simply because it fulfills the criteria. Significant coverage because an actual newspaper covered it. Reliable because those sources are secondary and not biased. There are numerous sources. They are independent of the subject. Slenderman is mainstream enough to warrant seven references from the mainstream (but not a reliable source of course) site cracked.com, including its own article. Why? Because slender man is relatively very well known to anyone familiar to internet culture, much more so than most other memes. More than Salad Fingers, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.170.163 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a bias against internet phenomena? Have you looked at Category:Internet forums, for instance? And no, there is no significant discussion in reliable sources. There is one single newspaper article which is hard to take seriously. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but "hard to take seriously" does not make it unreliable. Barring one or two minor errors (naming the series as "The Marble Hornets", for instance) the article is true, and in a reputable publication. Also, out of curiosity: do student newspapers for major universities count as "reliable"? Cougar Draven (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It depends on which paper, I think. If it has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" it should be ok. For example, I've cited The Harvard Crimson a couple times without anyone complaining. The East Peoria State Technical College Gazette-Times might not fly, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm hopeful that the University of Alabama's The Crimson White would qualify. Now I just have to wait and see. Cougar Draven (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]