Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The topic has received substantial coverage in the reliable sources cited in the article, namely:

Alexander, Leigh (5 May 2016). "_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9: the mysterious tale terrifying Reddit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
Kastrenakes, Jacob (23 April 2016). "Someone is creating a horrifying sci-fi world in Reddit comments". The Verge. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
"'_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9' Is Reddit's New, Terrifying Mystery". Vice. 29 April 2016. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.}}
"The mysterious novel in the cat video comments". BBC News. 2016-05-31. Archived from the original on 2016-05-31. Retrieved 2016-05-31.
Menegus, Bryan. "There's a Sci-Fi Novel Secretly Unfolding in Reddit's Comments". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2017-09-10.

This establishes its compliance with the notability guideline, WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources already present in the article, which were reiterated here, there are plenty more that can be found with some searches. For example, here is a recent book that covered the topic. The amount of coverage in reliable sources shows that it easily passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate notability.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keek Clearly substantial coverage per the above sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage clearly shows notability. Less Unless (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2021 (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.