Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creepypasta (2nd nomination)

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. L Faraone 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta

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

It's not unthinkable that an article about the phenomenon of "creepypasta" could be created. However, this one isn't it; it's just a listing of creepypasta stories and videos, sourced solely to KnowYourMeme, fan wikis, and the stories/videos themselves. Delete and redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V. Article is currently "sourced" entirely to web sites that allow anonymous submissions. Search engine test of news, books, and scholarly sources finds passing mentions of the term "creepypasta" but no evidence that sufficient reliable sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. If a redirect is left in place of the article, then the edit history of this article strongly suggest that long-term protection will be required to prevent yet another recreation of this previously deleted subject. --Allen3 ^talk 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Right now we should delete until somebody comes up with a better version that is more than just "notable examples" and bad sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know whether or not non-admins can take part at this but if:

Keep, but with a not properly sourceable tag. Creepypasta is in most cases not true, best case would be Ben Drowned where the creator revealed that it isnt true, and people should be able to know that most creepypasta is not true or have any evidence without going to some shady websites.

M y 1 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone can take part – welcome and thank you! The problem with the article is that nobody can find any reliable sources that talk about creepypasta. That means that the only way to write an article about creepypasta is to visit and take material from exactly the "shady websites" you want to avoid. Dricherby (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of course but here in Wiki we can set a mark that the sources are not reliable, so that people know to take it with a pinch of salt, for example with the template {{Unreliable sources}} or something like that, which other sites probably dont do or simply cannot do.

M y 1 20:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that all articles must cite reliable sources: it's a fundamental part of what Wikipedia is. We don't have a sort of "Wikipedia 2" where all the unreliable articles hang out. The purpose of the {{Unreliable sources}} template is to encourage editors to find better sources, which can't be done if there are no better sources. Dricherby (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK too bad, but Also a reason for keeping this, Mythology things like Harpies, or good old Medusa, or best example, God, which are not really proven to exist, are here in the Wiki. Creepypasta ist just the scary side of modern-day mythology, if you ask me.

(also just a note, when comments of My1xT appear here, this is just my account for insecure computers as permitted by WP:SOCK#LEGIT

M y 1 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the difference between Harpies, Medusa and God on the one hand, and creepypasta on the other is that there are lots of reliable sources discussing Harpies, Medusa and God. Regardless of whether or not they exist, we can write a verifiable article about what people have said about them, the influence they've had on society and so on. Without sources, we can't do that for creepypasta. The significant difference between creepypasta and mythology is that nobody has analysed or written about creepypasta in any way that could be regarded as authoritative and that would give us something to base a verifiable article on. Dricherby (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better Idea. maybe delete the examples, but keep the explanation of the term, which could be sourced somewhere... My1x T(a.k.a. My1 (insecure)) 10:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If appropriate sources exist to demonstrate the notability of the term, that would be reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could conceivably be a dictionary entry, but the sources are insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Let it preferably be on the website of List of Internet Phenomena at the most.The above mentioned websites do not count as reliable sources.Guru-45 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 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.