Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petscop (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 merge to Creepypasta. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Petscop
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A "creepypasta" Youtube series about a fictitious video game. While there are links to mainstream sources that discuss the series, I'm unsure of its notability and feel a full discussion is necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: CSD G4 was declined with the note "Substantially different than the previous version and contains reliable sources that weren't previously considered in the deletion discussion. Try AfD again if you think its not notable." power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete: I think that the sources given are enough, to be honest. The series is popular and notable, there's really no way to express that other than saying just that. I know it's sort of like giving a Work Cited page as "it is known", but that's just what I think. CipherCraft618 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Creepypasta. Although it is covered in what might be considered some reliable sources, they're limited (Playground and AVClub and maybe others stem from the Kotaku story) and a few are rather subjective (The Bustle lists, the New Yorker story). It thus doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, but it's not a delete either — a couple of solid paras (minus the episode guide and the Original Research) at the proposed target appear warranted. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bit too much text to merge with anything, though. There's certainly enough content to keep it as its own page. CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But a lot of what's there is Original Research or recap, and secondary coverage is limited (I count 2 clearly independent stories -- Kotaku and New Yorker -- with Bustle a list, AV Club and MXDWN re-reporting Kotaku, and GamePro and Playground almost probably re-reporting Kotaku due to the timing). Anyway, I've just created the proposed paragraphs, which would have had to have been done regardless of whether the article is kept or not. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There are only two proponents of the article here, CipherCraft618 and AntiGravityMaster who argue that the article needs to stand alone because it is so long. An AfD is an argument over notability, not length. It should be edited boldly and merged. Half of the entries in this AfD are from two fans. That's not enough to sway a consensus. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge -- Already deleted once. The support for this article is incompatible with any definition of encyclopedia I know. Rhadow (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not just arguing length, I also obviously believe it is notable. Are there not enough secondary sources? What is the issue here? AntiGravityMaster (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They are the same user, CipherCraft618 appears to have gotten a global rename. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind explaining? The article is formatted and written in an encyclopedic way, are you just saying this because it's about a somewhat obscure topic? CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are the sources found not enough? We have seven independent (news) sources, and it's undeniable the series is notable and popular. CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Has received enough coverage and speculation on its own, passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, to put it into more specific terms, I also agree it passes WP:GNG. It's possible it didn't when this discussion was started, but more sources have been added. CipherCraft618 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Creepypasta. I would vote keep if we remove all the character and per-episode information, but then the article would barely have enough left and would be better as a small paragraph in the creepypasta article instead. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would we remove the character and episode information? Aren't those standard sections for any episodic series? And, again, a merge wouldn't really work given how the page is formatted. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we not agree that the page passes WP:GNG? If it does, shouldn't the article remain as it is? AntiGravityMaster (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Hydronium Hydroxide's analysis of the sourcing and merged content already written. -- ferret (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an AFD is to determine that. The non-keep votes essentially argue it does not pass GNG and is not notable enough to stand on its own as an individual article. -- ferret (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Creepypasta (though honestly, that list should probably be split off to something like List of creepypastas). The reception section uses weasel words without the sources or evidence of ongoing notability to back it up.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, bit of a harsh citicism, but you're right. I've changed that, using what was writen in Petscop 's section on the Creepypasta article. Should be better now. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge into to Creepypasta. I created the first AfD, I believe there are enough sources now to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, but still not enough to merit a separate article. I agree with User:Dissident93 that the character and per-episode stuff need to go for the merge to work. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.