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 keep. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable self promotion. Creepypastas is a page on Wikia which has occasionally been mentioned in side comments in several articles on pop culture. Check the sources. It does not meet WP:WEB which says: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources. — Keithbob • Talk • 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result from both of the prior AfDs was DELETE.[1][2] Why does it still appear in the pedia?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as it pains me, I have to say it qualifies as meeting GNG, per these refs [3], [4], [5], [6], and others. Keithbob, it appears it was recreated days after being deleted last time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Мандичка's reasoning. The term refers to much more than a single webpage. The article itself could probably lose the examples which are not independently notable (not to mention the lengthy explanations) but the term itself is definitely notable. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Admittingly it needs some work doing but notability is there - Obvious keep imho, –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It doesn't need all those examples on the page, but the term itself is definitely notable enough. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple non-trivial references means it meets WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it were up to me, this would be a single paragraph in urban legend, but reliable sources disagree with me and have found it to be a notable concept in its own right. Given the sources listed here and the copious hits on Google News, I'd have to say that this is a keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll yield to consensus if any Admin or veteran editor want's to close as a snow-keep. After which I will cut back the article so it contains cited content only as suggested by some of the editors here. Thank you everyone for your participation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has now been the subject of a book and has significant coverage. I do think the in-depth examples could probably be trimmed quite a bit though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artistic merit of this contemporary literary art form has been examined in the reliable sources listed by Wikimania. This concept meets WP:GNG. The story summaries currently included in this article should be deleted unless they themselves have been reviewed by a someone with expertise in the field of literary criticism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Creepypasta has been substantially covered in multiple news articles and in an academic journal [7]. This meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2015 (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.