Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFOL

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 delete. Though there are a lot of keep votes, many are by single purpose accounts. Delete votes were more persuasive. — OcatecirT 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFOL

AFOL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only mentions I found came from BrickWiki and WP mirror sites. Seems to be an neologism only in use with die hard Lego fans and current/former Lego Co. employees. mcr616 Speak! 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What the...? A few mentions of online communities is not enough to build a house of legos. (Delete.) YechielMan 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DTUN (Delete This Unimportant Neologism) Guy (Help!) 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not really a NEO-logism, as it's been in use for at least 12 years. But it's not really a notable term outside the LEGO community, you'll get blank looks from the mundanes if you use with them. BrickWiki's article (AFOL) does a fine enough job of defining it, although that article could stand updating from this one before this one goes, should that be the outcome (ping me, I'll do it if no one else does). There may be sections of this article as well that are worth transferring elsewhere (perhaps to the main LEGO article, or to articles about fannish activities) but it won't be a great loss if it's deleted. And I speak as a diehard fan. Weak Keep as more notable than most neologisms. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable neologism within tiny field, no reason for an article. DreamGuy 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Find the appropriate bibliography, and include all human knowledge, if properly referenced. --Chr.K. 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What? I don't think a bibliography would apply here. Also, it's hard to reference something that only comes up on fan sites and WP mirrors. mcr616 Speak! 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be a file of some kind for adults who are extremely interested in, for want of a better term, "LEGO art." I recently saw a Yahoo piece on the subject of one, actually. If this specific page has to be deleted, make sure to save all the information in a more appropriate article, such as on LEGOs themselves, or on the artistic use of the blocks; when referencing the group in the LEGO page, give the references that speak of it...even if it is just "fan sites," as it is basically impossible that they're lying about such a group existing. --Chr.K. 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the group exists, it's a question of whether or not we can back the information up with neutral, reputable sources. A fan site, by definition, wouldn't be neutral, and would probably not be very reputable either. mcr616 Speak! 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I happen to know that this is not a case of sockpuppeteering, although I'm not going to comment on canvassing (none by me though). Sockpuppet is an interesting analogy with this case. In this use it is a word that has a fairly limited user group and I have never come across it outside of (internet) conversations.Talltim 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although this acronym has a limited sphere of use, surely this means that that people are less likely to know what it means and so need to look it up if they come across it? Talltim 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 1,000's of AFOLs all around the world, it is a common term used by LEGO enthusiasts, and this article should stay. Duxford 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — Duxford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep How many AFOLs would it need for you guys thinking it is worth keeping? I agree AFOL is a neologism and it only refers to a somewhat small group of people, but so does Trekkie. All arguments for deleting AFOL would also apply for Trekkie. Also AFOL does not only refer to an online community, there are large, international AFOL events (mainly in Europe and North America) with thousands of visitors every year. (I am somewhat biased, since I would consider myself an AFOL.) ckruetze 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is meant to be a source where you can find information and meanings of words, acronyms, abbreviations and many more topics we normally have no or little idea of their meaning. Therefore, we need a place to search for these things using platforms such as Wikipedia to find out more. Deleting anything where information (particularly correct information) is provided to acknowledge and share the meaning/s and let others know what something in particular actually means, is not the wisest of ideas and Wikipedia loses its very purpose when this happens. I am what I consider to be an AFOL; I am an (female) Adult fan of LEGO. You cannot change that nor can you change the fact that there are thousands of AFOLs all on the same planet. Please do not delete the term, people who do not understand or know what an AFOL is, need a place such as Wikipedia to find out what it really stands for and means.LegoM 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — LegoM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Yes, there may be thousands of AFOLs, I don't doubt that. But I doubt that for most of the world, they will ever come across the term AFOL in everyday conversation. Most people's lives don't revolve around a children's toy. Thousands of members isn't enough when there is no press coverage from a neutral, 3rd party source. I am in the MCRmy, the street team for My Chemical Romance. There are around 68,000 and probably more, people in the Rmy. We have meet up's (which would be your conventions), large groups of us go to concerts and hand out promo, and we have many MCRmy related events in our local areas. But do I think we need a Wikipedia article? No. The simple answer is that the Rmy, and your group as well, isn't notable enough to attract press coverage. Therefore, there are no 3rd party neutral sources. If it can't be verified by a reputable 3rd party source, then it doesn't really have a place in Wikipedia. If the article is kept, it should be trans-wikied to Wikitionary. mcr616 Speak! 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. To my mind an article on MCRmy would be an interesting and useful article to include on wiki. However I can see reasons to transfer to Wikitionary Talltim 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AFOL does not refer to members of a specific organisation, but is a generic term for adults who enjoy Lego. While there may be a relatively small number of individuals who describe themselves as AFOLs, the number is growing, and it is likely to be only a matter of time before the term is used in mainstream media, and when it does, people will want to look it up to find out what it means.Lostcarpark 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — Lostcarpark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It may be a little used term outside the group it applies to, but it IS used and becoming more common. I see absolutely no reason to delete this. --Dean Earley 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to let everyone know, canvassing for votes is frowned upon. mcr616 Speak! 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is the deletion of pages even discussed if 4 people can outvote 7 other people??? Nobody should be able to classify somebody else's work as inimportant or nonnotable neologism. In my opinion, if one other person in the world might be interested in the article, it should stay. Thomas Mueller
Is that a policy or just 'etiquette'? It seems to me that relying on people to stumble upon an article is just going to bias it to people who spend a lot of time meta-wikiing. Timgould 21:35, 15 June 2007 (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.