From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ben Drowned

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ben Drowned (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Massive issues of WP:FANCRUFT. This should be redirect (again) to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (and even then limited to a sentence or two.) ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 09:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep – The work is covered in Gizmodo, Kotaku, Variety, Dread Central, EGM, The Ringer Vice, Nintendojo. Notability is long since established. The "extremely long sections" cited by 2601:192:8800:6F60:7522:61F4:1E14:1166 in their nomination currently unreferenced by secondary sources are only unreferenced at present because the author only started publishing the third installment in the series back in March, and that they have done so has yet to be widely reported upon. All other sections are fully referenced and sourced. Additionally the supposed "paragraphs being cited to Discord chatrooms, Spotify urls, podcasts, and primary-source materials that fail to support the claims" also cited by 2601:192:8800:6F60:7522:61F4:1E14:1166 referred to a single three-sentence paragraph section referencing the wider fan community in the Reception section (there was no Spotify url cited anywhere) which has since been removed regardless. Please look WP:BEFORE nominating, as things aren't always what they may seem to be from just glancing at the page itself. KMWeiland ( talk) 16:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the same reasons as listed by the user above. However, there is indeed a desperate need for markup, cleanup, and general improvements. The absence of third-party sources is not lost on me. 74.90.120.94 ( talk) 17:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per KMWeiland. There are too many reliable sources for this topic not be notable. I do agree with the notion that this page might need a slight clean-up. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It needs some clean-up as others have mentioned, but I don't see an issue with it. For its notability, it is an important touchstone in the creepypasta genre and as another user mentioned above has been widely covered by numerous reputable sources. I think there's very little disputing that it's nearly on par with Slenderman in its significance of influencing the direction of how the genre developed as a whole. From a historical perspective on internet culture in the early 10's alone, it seems worthy to me. 97.78.193.35 ( talk) 04:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sure it can use some additional trimming, but it was mentioned by Vice, in detail by Kotaku (on several occasions [1], [2]), Engadget, Bloody Disgusting (though not sure if that's user submitted or by the team), Mashable. If it should be redirected, I think it's more suitable to have it redirected to creepypasta. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per reasons above. Article needs some cleanup. Other than that, it easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Reliable sources give it significant coverage. Dream Focus 01:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Demonstrates notability, just needs improvement. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • MERGE Although notability is demonstrated, it is bloated by original research, causing the article to be much larger than it should be. It is horribly unencyclopedic in its current state and should be returned to a paragraph at Majora's Mask or List of creepypasta. 76.19.207.82 ( talk) 08:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Size, original research and tone can all be worked on, but you agree notability has been met? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:49, 19 June 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Drowned&oldid=963360970"