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. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slender man

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

)

This cannot meet the criteria for inclusion. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Web search brings up a few links, but nothing that could ever establish the notability needed for the article to stay. Frehley 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could be persuaded to change my vote if someone massively re-writes this and sources it. As it stands, it's incoherent. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cannot identify what the subject is talking about. Would almost say it qualifies for speedy under A1, but it's probably too long for that.
  talk) 08:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Besides the above, the tone screams copyvio.
  talk) 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It smacks of copyvio, partly due to the quotation marks surrounding the text, as well as its sounding like the middle of some preexisting text. Google search for part of it showed matches at 4chan [1], [2] but the text no longer appears to be at 4chan, although it might be in some sort of zipped archive. Typos in the Wiki article impair easy search for earlier appearances on the web. Fails
  notability. Edison (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A far more coherent article, which clearly identifies the intended subject here, was speedily deleted at Slender Man. I would undelete it (and place it under the umbrella of this discussion) for Niteshift36, Quantpole, and anyone else who has been unable to fathom what the subject is here, were it not for the fact that my own searches for sources have led me to the conclusion that these two articles are an elaborate hoax. I'm finding it difficult to bring myself to undelete a hoax that I think should be deleted. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The concept Slender Man exists, and what's the harm of keeping it? I wrote a simple summary on the subject, although I'm a beginner at writing. --Fat64 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that, of course, it doesn't exist at all. The fact that your best source so far is some silliness in a discussion forum should be setting off alarm bells, here. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (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.