Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank

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 Fanon (fiction) Yomangani^talk 15:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanwank

This article contains: a dictdef whose primary source of attestation is Urban Dictionary, a mass of original research, and no examples because there are no credible sources for such. The article is, in short, fanwankery. Guy 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable neologism, possibly hoax. --Dweller 10:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) After reconsideration, neutral between delete and merge instead after considering the new information. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Shame, it has a nice ring to it. ;) Rockpocket 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Google test gets 20,000 hits so maybe it's not quite as nonexistent as it looks, although this may be taken with a grain of salt as "fanwank"+"craig hinton" results in only Wikipedia knock-offs. Axem Titanium 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; that's incorrect. A Google search turned up at least two (apparently) independent sources of information- one dating back to 2000, so it certainly can't be from Wikipedia. I've added these references, and will add more. (Note: This is the first time I've seen this article; I'm not a contributor). Fourohfour 11:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer; this comment is mine. Please be aware of this and take possible (unintended) rallying into account if that occurs. Fourohfour 12:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if possible into Fanon (fiction), noting where claimed terms or usage are questionable (or discarding if there's no reliable source for that fact). Although the article smacks of original research in parts, it seems to be describing a real and recognised phenomena (though- as with many articles- it needs references). Fourohfour 11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Enough examples are present (Marvel Comics, Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who), and I think having 20 000 Google hits proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the concept is known by more than a small group of people and not original to the article. Sources have also been added since the nomination. Fanwanks definitely need to be discussed if Wikipedia is to thoroughly describe the phenomenon of fanfic. The current article isn't perfect, but a wiki article doesn't have to be perfect right away. There's definitely good solid material there, and it would be a shameful waste to throw it all away. NeonMerlin 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Asssuming that, as stated above, it's a real term, which it appears to be. Article has had a couple of references added. Is it original research, or is a distillation of existing knowledge? I'm not sure, but any article that explains the term "continuity porn" is A-OK in my book. Herostratus 05:41, 9 November 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.