Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SCP Foundation


 * 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. Not salted, no consensus for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The SCP Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable web content. Reddit, Tumblr, KnowYourMeme, and self-published sources are inadequate as sources. Article (under its previous name, SCP Foundation) was deleted twice as, but it continues to be recreated—so now I'm bringing it here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this subject; yet if it has been deleted twice, can you not request it be blocked from creation? (Known as creation protection?) Ziiike (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is it's called Salting. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 03:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ziiike didn't ask what it's called. After all, xe has just said what it's called.  What xe asked was why the nominator has come to AFD instead of requesting creation protection.  The answer is, of course, that the page has already been created.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found no reliable sources -- scores of unreliable ones, but nothing to indicate that this has garnered any arm's-length third-party expert opinion denoting notability.  I didn't even bother to address WP:FRINGE issues; there's nothing here but a bunch of people having fun speculating on a "paranormal" topic.  If the article's history is as I see above, I would endorse salt applied to the various names and spellings.  Ubelowme U  Me  15:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm a contributor to the SCP Foundation website.  I agree that it's not (yet) Notable.  I oppose salting, though.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit. Admission:  I am an admin at the SCP Foundation.  I do think that the SCP Foundation has enough notability for inclusion, with mentions in noteworthy venues such as Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Know Your Meme, and i09.  However, I don't believe the current article adequately demonstrates that notability, focusing too much on in-universe minutiae rather than explaining why the site is notable.  I'd prefer to see the page overhauled to meet Wikipedia standards.  I would do so myself, but I cannot be considered an objective editor.  If it cannot be edited, I'd prefer to see the page deleted until such a time as a better page can be written.  I oppose salting, as even if I'm wrong about the notability of the site, I believe it will gain more notability as time goes by.  DrEverettMann (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Salting doesn't make it impossible to ever have such an article; it merely becomes more difficult than just starting one on the spur of the moment.  An administrator has to approve the creation and I have never known such permission to be refused on any except the most solid grounds (usually extreme bad faith in the past, which is not the case here).  Have no fear, if the organization is/becomes notable, an article will be welcome. Ubelowme U  Me  19:53, 6 July 2012 (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.