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.
A lot of the sources look unreliable including [1]. The source [2] is not independent. The source [3] is a dead link. Unless the information that doesn't appear in any of the remaining reliable sources gets removed, I don't think this article belongs in Wikipedia. Even if it does get removed, the remaining information might be too short to have an article of its own and might be better to merge into List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, as a lot of the other sources are solidly reliable: the New York Times, AV Club, TIME. Meets WP:GNG as a notable subject and has enough examples explainable with references that "might be too short" doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. Googling the headline of the dead NYT link shows that it's now here, and writes about the phenomenon in depth. The article also cites an explanation in TIME Magazine, and an AV Club source which explains the term and mentions mainstream adoption of it, including a planned short film series Clive Barker’s Creepy Pasta.--McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The valid references from the previous AFDs are still there and make this article meet WP:GNG nothing in terms of notability have changed since the previous AFD. Just because you found 3 out of 16 references which may not be reliable does not make the entire article non notable and is not a deletion criteria, nor is "I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia" WP:IDONTLIKEIT.- McMatter(talk)/(contrib)16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Blackbombchu, did you not even bother to look at the talkpage (where every AFD is listed in exactly the place they're supposed to be) before diving in and nominating this? Unlike some of Wikipedia's internet meme articles, which are dubiously sourced waffle of highly questionable notability (I see Polandball has reappeared), this genuinely is a well-documented phenomenon. ‑ iridescent16:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know talk pages of articles that have been nominated before showed the nomination log. It won't happen again that I nominate an article for deletion without first looking to see if its talk page has that log. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfDing an article for having unreliable sources when its opening paragraph contains the sentence "According to TIME magazine, the genre had its peak audience in 2010 when it was covered by The New York Times." suggests a misunderstanding of how notability works. You say in your nomination that "Unless the information that doesn't appear in any of the remaining reliable sources gets removed, I don't think this article belongs in Wikipedia." - an article having a mix of both reliable and unreliable sources is not a reason to delete the article, it's at most a reason to delete the unreliable sources and the statements they support. --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment while there are lots of passing mentions, there does not appear to be significant coverage of the actual subject. if i have missed them, can someone point them out? What little coverage there is of the subject appears to be limited by WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the NYT article pushes it straight across WP:N on its own pretty much; it demonstrates straight away that this is a topic which the mainstream media are taking seriously. Even if nothing but the NYT article and the Time article existed, that would be "multiple independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" right there. ‑ iridescent17:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources, but point of order; you can't vote "snow keep". WP:SNOW is not in itself a deletion rationale but rather a determination that the consensus is unanimous and unlikely to change. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nobody is using SNOW KEEP as a rationale, they voting with it. All votes have been Keep and we are asking that the next passing admin or non involved editor close this pointless AFD as SNOW KEEP. The nominator has already acknowledged this AFD was an error and there no outstanding delete votes. That seems to be exactly what WP:SNOW is about.- McMatter(talk)/(contrib)20:40, 14 September 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.
