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. most of the keep votes are assertions or citing non reliable sources. The consensus is that the sourcing doesn't match our inclusion standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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) — 24.17.13.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 71.233.170.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

After 5 minutes of looking around, I found at least a few "possible" sources:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSlenderManMythos

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/333/151/Legend_and_Legacy_of_the_Slender_Man.html

mr voo doo . hubpages . com / hub / The-Slender-Man-Legend-Something-Awful-Lurks (For some reason wikipedia "blocked" this link - it's a legit site though.)

And this gaming news site even gives mention to him:

http://www.gamingunion.net/news/watch-out-new-minecraft-mob-looks-like-slender-man--5916.html

So what's the big deal?...174.62.155.87 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — 174.62.155.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete The notability guidelines mention the requirement for multiple independent reliable sources - this has one (I note that the above sources would not appear to meet the reliable source criteria). I couldn't find any more when I searched, and so I feel that this subject fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability in multiple independent reliable sources. Only one decent source, the Star-Tribune story, and since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that's not the best source on internet memes. None of the other sources meet the standard for WP:IRS. Not impressed with the assertions for keeping or the links provided above. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources (sorry, KnowYourMeme isn't one of these). TV Tropes wiki page is user-generated content, and the others do not appear to be reliable sources. Further more, this book merely mentions Slender Man, and focuses more on the YouTube content more than on the fictional character. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for obvious notability, citations and sources. --Jeff24 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Slenderman has become notable enough to spawn at least one homage within a distinct sub-community of geek culture - a confirmed upcoming Minecraft mob, the "enderman", has been acknowledged by the game's creator as being inspired by this meme. See Notch's comment here. I have no opinion on whether or not that makes Slenderman notable enough to be kept (I've retired as a Wikipedian, hence my not being signed in), but I noticed this AfD while reading the article and figured that this new info may be of interest to those discussing the AfD nomination. --67.83.26.49 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Slenderman is a testament to how new media has changed the way stories are told and developed. Though not as notable as the Brother Grimm or Hans Christian Anderson (truth be told their stories not told through movies are very vague to the 21st century person) Slenderman shows how people can still invent a new monster to haunt you. Like many regional monsters known mostly to the inhabitants of those areas, like the MothMan & Jersey Devil Slenderman may not have the greatest notability but in the community were he exists he holds a strong presence. The page is not badly written at all and sources exist they have not just been cited and used yet. With a good night of TLC from a strong and seasoned Wikipedia-er this article will be top shape. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsome (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY suggested keep. I think that this is a trustworthy article, sited from enough source, and useful. A lot of people want to know about the Slender Man, and where it originated.

I like this article, and reference it a lot. Wikipedia is smart, but without this article, Wikipedia will be one article dumber.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.134.146 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

• Delete. The article goes beyond the sources. I would also strongly urge against bolding sentances (especially in extra large letters) and even more against using multiple punctuation in a row. Both give the impression that you are trying to cow other editors into agreeing with you and are just not politie behaviors leading to positive discussions. I know it can be frustrating when an article you worked on is nominated for deletion, but deletion is not the end of the world and yelling about it (which is what these behaviors amount to) does no good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would have sent it for speedy if i'd seen it. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this will be any support to the Keep side, but here's an article from a French web magazine on Marble Hornets which encompasses the Slender Man. I know English articles are preferable, but I would think at least this shows proliferation outside the often language- and culture-limited realm of web memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.66.6 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: there are three Youtube series and four blogs devoted to this, not to mention coverage on multiple Internet information websites. Wikipedia has articles devoted to MUCH more obscure memes, so I don't see why people in this discussion are suggesting to delete it based on its "obscurity". Cyan Ryan^(talk) 17:05, 28 July 2011 (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.