Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slender-Man

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. Even for Web ephemera, adequate reliable sourcing is the core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:V#Notability), and the "keep" opinion gloss over the article's sourcing iproblems or ignore them. Sandstein 17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slender-Man

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

Fictional character for which I could not find significant coverage beyond user-contributed content online. See the deletion logs at Slender Man and Slenderman for CSDs and AFD discussions on the same subject. wctaiwan (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am slightly biased towards deletion when a deleted page is recreated, albeit with improvements. However, I believe, that with some effort, this article could be salvaged, as the subject appears notable. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is going to be a major problem here, as this is a meme character mostly (but not absolutely exclusively) used on one forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As cool as it would be to have an article on Der Grossmann, the subject just isn't notable enough. Yet. -waywardhorizons (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does seem to be a rather pervasive phenomenon, albeit one that is primarily online. I don't see why that precludes it from being included in this article however, when even the most minor characters from third-rate TV shows get their own articles. --86.42.139.210 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems to be gaining a bit of a following. It is primarily user-created content, I'll agree, but it is gaining a following. It'll probably won't be too long before it is featured in some manner in mainstream media. --JB Adder | Talk 12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor characters of even major shows generally don't get their own article, e.g. the Pokemon characters which used to have their own article but now are put in lists. This just isn't notable enough. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article actually has its own wiki along with it mentioned in multiple wiki's like mythical creatures and beast. Yeah some pokemon don't get their own article, but pokemon are way less likely to exist plus there about 700 pokemon and all have at least a paragraph of its attributes, where this slender man has been written on Egyptian Hieroglyphs and seen as a paranormal phenomenon. It can be merged but it deserve's it own article for one day it could be a marvel comic character or thriller movie. It still has potential to add a rack load of info to it. It may not be notable like Medusa or a more realistic creature like Kraken colossal octopus but its decent enough.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (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.