Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandom Wank (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 Delete. Per discussion, fails Web notability guidelines and verifiability with reliable sources.. Shell ^babelfish 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fandom Wank

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

I could think of a million reasons to get rid of this page, but let's just start with non-notable (page hasn't been touched since March 2006), far from NPOV (quite popular?), original research (nearly all of their "references" are merely other F_W links) and downright inaccurate - which is what happens when fans write a vanity page. LoomisSimmons 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: first AFD from 2005-12-12: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandom Wank —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-17 05:19Z

• Merge with every single Star Trek and Buffy The Vampire Slayer article ever Delete. Artw 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per same reasons cited during first AfD. --AceMyth 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a single reference from anything even remotely close to a reliable source. The article asserts a good deal of notability, and this is supported by "Fandom Wank" getting almost 300,000 Google hits, with (exactly) 500 of the first 1,000 hits being unique, but again, all of the hits I saw were message board posts and blogs. In addition, and what really convinces me that this is insignificant, is that it's hosted on a freeweb service that itself is not notable enough (FYI: Alexa rank of 63,593) to have its own WP article. -- Kicking222 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the main reason they're hosted on JournalFen is that they got kicked off LiveJournal (and possibly other sites), and they wanted somewhere they knew wouldn't do that. - makomk 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Yes, and this entry fails to mention that the reason they were kicked off not only LiveJournal but Blurty as well is because F_W members were actively encouraging members to harass people that they were "wanking", going as far as to post personal real life information of people (including pictures, full names, addresses and even telephone numbers). That's the problem with a fan page - the bias. F_W has its own Wiki, so why does their "history" need to be documnented here? Before you know it, places like OhNoTheyDidnt and Premade LJs - both communities with over 30,000 members - will have entries here. LoomisSimmons 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • • Comment: I don't know much about the days before Journalfen, but as of right now, F_W and its affiliated communities are adamant about not giving out the personal info of anyone featured there, and the mods will immediately delete the comments of and ban anyone caught doing this. You're not even supposed to alert the people being wanked that they are on f_w or participate in the wank on your own. These things are all right in the comm's rules. So if that's the problem you have with the community itself, and your issue is that Wikipedia condones such behavior by keeping the article up, then it's really a non-issue at this point. If you have an instance where someone's privacy was violated by the comm recently, then cite examples.AGNGoo 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Cite examples with what? Original research? LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Oh, let's see... reports to the LJ administration? Police reports, if it's gone that far? News articles? What's that? No such thing? Then the information is not properly included in the article. I assumed you had some kind of proof of it when you first mentioned it, but naturally it wasn't there if there's no external corroborating evidence. Check ljseek and see about reports, if you want it included. Miss w 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment If it "fails to mention" something, then edit it in (with proper cites)... that's a no-brainer. In fact, it seems like a rather important thing to include. Miss w 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment And it's also a no-brainer that it can't be proven without even more original research. Other people's blogs and Fandom Wank's Greatest Hits are hardly good sources. LoomisSimmons 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well then, if it's not a supportable fact, it wouldn't be included in the article... so what's the issue here? Miss w 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB and lack of notability through reliable sources. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AceMyth. Switchercat ^talk_cont 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elk & Kicking. StarryEyes 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article fails to be verified by reliable sources that would WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 03:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Possibly notable (at least in some senses of the word), but doesn't look like it's verifiable - makomk 11:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable internet groups, as before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very interesting article about a website that has thousands of members. The website covers a whole range of fandoms and it is very much the case that major players within fandoms have heard of it. Amazing though it may seem to the person who brought up this AfD, a lot of people have heard of Fandom Wank (and we're not talking people just within the Wikipedia), and there are several articles on Wikipedia of less notable figures, for example: Daniel Brandt. I'm calling that the person who posted this AfD has some sort of grudge against FW. EDIT: And if you want to get rid of this, then (as said in the previous AfD) get rid of GNAA first86.129.32.151 16:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  --User's only contribution has been this AfD vote LoomisSimmons 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, only notable in a recursive sense -- f_w is famous to the people in f_w. And please let's not start using GNAA as a criterion of some sort, we don't need that mess again. Madame Sosostris 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The first deletion debate probably should have been thrown out, as notability was asserted without being proved. The lack of actual references outside of the community imply a walled garden. Absent extenuating circumstances, three thousand members is not particularly impressive nor does it argue for inclusion. Furthermore, articles are not kept on the basis that articles still worthy of deletion remain. An article must stand or fall on its own merits. Finally, the article itself makes no assertion of notability, despite its length and verbosity. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blogs are a pestilence upon the face of the Internet. Adam Bishop 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. A negative opinion against blogs is not a viable reason to exclude notable blogs from inclusion in Wikipedia. Would you deny that there are many blogs that have had a significant impact upon life in this time? If so, I would like to see your evidence. --Thephotoman 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mackensen, and the lack of independent references. --Doc 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a not externally notable website. Choess 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Fails WP:WEB and per Mackensen, Delete ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per last afd.--Antimatter Spork 04:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per last afd. El Juno 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you want to get rid of one fandom site, you might as well get rid of the entire fandom section. LadyRogue 08:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because the community is heavily influential, has a huge membership, and a lot of lurkers. It is one of the most well known fandom established sites that crosses panfannish lines. --PurplePopple 11:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because there are scores of articles in Wikipedia that deal with other online fan/fad sites (there is an entire article devoted to the origins of the phrase "im in ur fridge eatin yur foodz", an article devoted to the "Snakes On A Plane" phenomena, an article devoted to the "numa numa" video, an article devoted to Weebl and Bob, etc.), which also exhibit the same faults the person nominating this article for deletion attributed to Fandom Wank. If this article is deleted, we would have to delete all these as well, and something tells me this is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.
  • No, we should delete all those too. Adam Bishop 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per last afd - Nancy Vandal
• Keep per previous afd and the fact that most of the reasons for deletion are incredibly weak--external documentation can be provided and probably should be. Fandom Wank is significant, and if the problem is a matter of documentation, then the editor should have posted a notice saying that the article needed such, not putting the article up for AfD--or added documentation. Furthermore, see comments by those who have provided them in favor of keeping this article. --Thephotoman 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because the community is, in a word, notorious. It does need some work to present a more neutral point of view, but all in all it is just as valid as any other page referring to fandom and having a Wiki page reflects that. Orsik 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Orsik.
• Keep I think it's valuable to have articles on particular internet communities, and that's certainly never going to be part of a mainstream encyclopedia. Wiki is a good place to go specifically for information about things you might hear about randomly that you have no clue about, and fandom_wank is one of the places you might accidentally run across in general net discussions. As to the size fo the comm? It's about as big as some of the small towns we have pages for (eg, Perry, NY), and probably has more constant activity. It has as much point as they do. Miss w 16:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to point out that the majority of these keep votes are simply "if so-and-so is here, why can't this be here?" which, as Mackensen has pointed out, is no reason to keep anything. If there are other vanity pages that need to be deleted, then let's get rid of them. As for "proving" anything about F_W through external documenation, I challenge anyone to do so. The first AfD should've failed solely because notability was not proven (still hasn't been, other than "lots of people RILLY RILLY LIEK IT!!11"), and now we have the problem of original research. No matter what articles are here that shouldn't be - yes, even the cursed GNAA (which I disagree with as well), the bottom line is that F_W has no place on Wikipedia because it does NOT NOT FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA'S OUTLINED RULES. Notability? FAIL. Verification? FAIL. Neutral point of view? FAIL. And I challenge anyone to be able to "prove" any of the "points" made in the article LoomisSimmons 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment What "points" are made? It's a descriptive article about a community, and the reason I brought up the small town article is that it is also a descriptive article about a community. I don't see an NPoV issue here at all; the criticisms of the site are mentioned and the number of members is mentioned. It could probably do without the In-Jokes section, but that's a simple edit. I've been working on another community page Buffalo, NY, and the tone there is far less in tune with NPoV. I think it needs a really nitpicky re-edit, but I don't think that this means it should be deleted. Miss w 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The fact that you are comparing a TOWN with an online community as the same thing is mind-boggling. And up until yesterday, this article was extremely NPOV; someone was just polite enough to get rid of all the stroking and back-patting. Nevertheless, I get the impression that F_W is going to become the new GNAA: someone points out the flaws and uselessness of it being here, and its members will come flying in like locusts to defend their precious page. LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Non-physical is not the same thing as not real, or not important. If that were the case, there would be no reason to ever do anything on the internet at all.64.48.158.87 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The fact that you're refusing to see that a community is a community is what's mindboggling. Stating that an internet community is not a valid community is a violation of NPoV. Miss w 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment If there's something wrong with the page, FIX IT. Just because a page is not perfect is no reason to put it up for deletion.--69.182.129.71 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentKeep - FW is a repository for all the idiocy that most places would rather cover up. For that purpose alone it's valid and useful.

Comment F_W does a lot of covering up itself, such as the reason for their being banned from LiveJournal (and Blurty) and the banning of people from their own Wiki who step up to challenge a lot of the lies they tell. Even if there is proof, (screencaps, links, etc), they'll ban that person anyway. So I don't see how F_W is any different than any other community who "covers up" things. LoomisSimmons 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment So basically, your whole reason for bringing this up for deletion is that you don't like FW and think they lie a lot, without any corroboration whatsoever of that idea. Cite evidence of said lies. Bring up the screen caps--they'd be housed elsewhere, probably by the person who originally posted them. As far as I know, the only screen caps that have gotten people banned have been screencaps of f-locked posts, which are prohibited in the comm because they aren't allowed to wank f-locked posts. That's visible in the comm's regulations. Exactly what instances are you referring to? Perhaps we could find verification, in which case it would be an interesting addition to the article. Miss w 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I suspect the real issue is that there aren't any verifiable sources and we're wholly unconvinced that this forum is worth an encyclopedia article. Not that any of the above comments have managed to address that issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• In keeping with the note at the head of the page, the reason I think it should be kept is quite simple: Wiki is the only place to get non-biased information on sites such as this. Yes, it could lead to the consequence of bad_penny having a page, or OhNoYouDidn't, but honestly? I don't think that's a bad thing. Cyber-communities unattached to major entries (eg, hatrack.com would be attached, presumably, to Orson Scott Card--I haven't checked, though) are orphan information, and they are topics which someone could quite conceivably come looking for if encountered elsewhere on the web. One of the wonderful things about the Internet is the spontaneous generation of distinct sub-communities, and it behooves an online encyclopedia to treat them as legitimate. If we want to avoid having a page for every single comm, maybe we could come up with an over-arching article which includes several under general categories, but at present, that doesn't exist, and an article specifically dealing with one particular comm, as long as it is written in NPoV, is as justifiable as one on a small town or any other minor hobby. (Another possible "general" page would be net-watching as a hobby, rather like philately or bird-watching, with F_W, bp, and others addressed as separate aspects of it. Miss w 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A page on net-watching might be rather interesting and useful. I can think of at least a few other communities similar to FW, albeit with different focuses, which might be included. Vigilanterodent 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: So maybe we should create it, and when it's in decent shape, merge existing articles on the topic into it? Miss w 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: No references whatsoever outside of LJ and similar fan sites; fails WP:WEB miserably. Note to closing administrator: There are several "votes" here from socks and accounts that only show up for deletion discussions, not citing reasons why this belongs on an encyclopedia or responding to reasons in favor of deletion. A similar, though less egregious thing happened with the previous AfD that they are citing. —Centrx→talk • 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per last afd. Proserpine 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you state what you believe that reasoning to be? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or alternatively delete the Fark.com article as well. This article and the Fark article mirror each other in structure, and useless trivia. (Maybe they could be merged with other articles on similar communities?) Why is Fark.com noteworthy and Fandom Wank isn't? Fandom Wank is frequently mentioned in the blogosphere, often in context unconnected to Fandom Wank itself 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and has been slowly but surely redefined the meaning of the word "wank" in fannish contexts. It's no longer about masturbation and plot holes, but also about flame wars and ego-tripping. I think that an encylopedia whose article on truthiness is longer than their article on Lutherans, who have an article about a small piece of slash fanfiction which used to be an internet fad in 2002 (Very Secret Diaries) either should re-think their approach to pop culture items and internet phenomena in general or leave things as they are. Jules2 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Jules2
• Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that Fark and Fandom Wank can be equated? Also, the existence of one article has never been accepted as a valid criteria for the retention of another. The article discrepancy you describe happens because people belonging to non-notable worthless sub-forums and what not flood Wikipedia because the world must know about obscure trivia. Much like most of the people arguing for this article to be kept, actually. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed I state that Fark, Metafilter and Fandom Wank are pretty much the same type of online commentary. So what about the Very Secret Diaries article? Or Truthiness. Are those really notable? Or as notable as the length of the article in the case of Truthiness suggests? How many Colbert Report fans have typed their fingers off, editing the Truthiness article, or the article on Colbert's fake persona? Are you suggesting that they weren't biased to flood wikipedia in order to give Truthiness its length? Or that the author of the Very Secret Diaries hasn't got them bookmarked? I think you confuse bias with personal investment into a subject. Fact is that Wikipedia could not exist without people having personal investment into the Codex Seraphinianus or Brown rice. That does not make the content of the articles less truthful nor does it make them more or less notable. Jules2 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't respond to many of your points in detail because they're irrelevant. The primary problem here isn't notability but verifiability. There aren't any sources for crafting this article; it's all primary research. And while this and Fark might be similar types of sites, this is rather akin to stating that my local little league team and the Detroit Tigers are both baseball teams: the statement is true in a limited sense but deeply misleading. I've no doubt that related fandoms flooded those articles; their time will come. You still haven't given a justification for keeping this article. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I am afraid this will degenerate into wank if we continue this discussion. Well, you should look up the meaning of wank as I am using it here as fast as you, because if your mission succeeds you won't be able to look it up on Wikipedia anymore. Anyway, I am not sure if I can give you a justification for keeping the article, since you're quite intense about deleting it. But personally, I find the fact that the Official Joss Whedon blog has used the word wank in the Fandom Wank definition of the word without actually linking to Fandom Wank in any form a sign that the definition word wank has been irreversibly altered by Fandom Wank among a significant part of the online community. That is one thing that makes Fandom Wank notable. As for media mentions this describes a series of events that partially took place on Fandom Wank. Fandom Wank is not explicitly mentioned, but only because the author mistook Fandom Wank for the LiveJournal fanfic community. Wikipedia could have put her right, if she had actually done research. --Jules2 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Truthiness has been the subject of multiple articles in the mainstream press. I deeply doubt whether "Fandom Wank" will manage such a feat. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: The mainstream press is not the only source of documendation. I could fairly easily provide first-hand documentation (which should trump documentation provided third-hand, which is what you get most of the time with the mainstream press) of most of the claims in this article. Those for which I cannot do so could be provided by others. The only reason I haven't done so is a matter of time constraints. Furthermore, truthiness was a concept championed by Stephen Colbert, who is much closer to the mainstream press than Fandom Wank by virtue of being a cable television personality. --Thephotoman 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read the policy on original research (WP:OR). We're a tertiary source, so we rely on secondary accounts. There aren't any of those for this site. While primary sources can be integrated (and should), we can't construct an article out of those alone. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: Your argument against referencing primary sources is not valid, as WP:OR allows for such. The only thing prohibited through WP:OR is posting work in Wikipedia that would result in Wikipedia being referenced as a primary source. No such material is presented here. Tell us what you want documented, and it will be documented. If the mainstream press and textbooks were the only things referenced, it would mean that Wikipedia would be a much less robust encyclopedia--most articles on Internet phenomena would not be present. --Thephotoman 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fandom Wank is a well-known part of the Internet, like Slashdot or Fark.com. Jaguara 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why does a Google News Search for "Fandom Wank" come up with 0 results, but 40+ for Fark and 500+ for Slashdot? Why does a regular Google search come up with more than 100 million results for Slashdot, more than 20 million results for Fark, but only 200 thousand results for "Fandom Wank"? Why can you find no references for the article outside of LiveJournal and the Fandom Wank website? —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a large online community, therefore notable. There is no OR as Thephotoman says. It's self-verifiable. Any POV elements can be removed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Mallanox 22:08, 21 August 2006 (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.