Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slender: Space

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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slender: Space

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

PROD declined, so AFD. No reliable sources available besides possible Bloody Disgusting; although CNET is a reliable source, the link was to a download page, which doesn't assert notability. Zappa O Mati 00:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember seeing this for PROD and seconding it back then. The problem here is that the coverage is incredibly light. The only true reliable source is the BD link, which is so small of an article that it could almost be considered trivial. CNET might have been usable, but it was a download link. Really, all of the links added were download links of one sort or another. I think one of them was the equivalent of a nn blog post that showed the trailer, but that was about it. Since they were pretty much just DL, I removed them from the article since that's considered to be somewhat inappropriate to link to in general. I'd recommend against redirecting this to the articles for either Slender: The Eight Pages or Slender Man. This wasn't made by the same crew that made STEP, and there are more than a few Slender Man related games and other things that have gotten brief mentions here and there in reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an extensive list of every Slender Man item that has gotten slight notice from a reliable source- we can and should only cover the ones that have received enough coverage to merit an article or at least just enough to where they barely fail notability guidelines. If we had at least one good in-depth source along with the borderline trivial BD mention, I'd probably say maybe a mention on the main article for Slendy, but the coverage just isn't here. That said, if anyone wanted to userfy a copy of the article then I have no problem with that. I'd just recommend that they get rid of the easter egg section, as it's unsourced and reads a bit more like something you'd find on a fansite or a blog. The rest of it is fine enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage or other evidence of encyclopedic relevance found. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2013 (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.