Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake geek girl


 * 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 Geek girl. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Fake geek girl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does this really warrant its own article? TheDracologist (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This does not seem notable enough to warrant its own article. TheDracologist (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess the thing I'm really trying to articulate is that it seems like an unnecessary WP:FORK covering a small section of a the larger topic of women and geek culture that can't really sustain its own article. TheDracologist (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fork isn't what I'm looking for either. I mean that it is too narrow for its own article and is better off as a subsection of a larger article TheDracologist (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be merged into some other article, but am curious what article would you like to see it merged into. It would also be helpful if you could explain why you think it can't sustain its own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd probably make it a section in Geek girl. TheDracologist (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator has not stated a policy based reason for deletion. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NAD and WP:N TheDracologist (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are eight sources, all written entirely about the phenomenon. The article contains quite a bit more than a dictionary article would, and I think clearly qualifies under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic, and not just the term, is the subject of discussion in books, news, scholarly articles, and the like. NAD utterly fails to apply. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - while the current article is pretty skimpy, the topic is highly relevant to the interactions of popular culture, fandom and feminism. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Geek girl, a very short article that could efficiently include this information, and be more useful to Users as a single article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A notable phenomena with sufficient sourcing. Can easily be expanded further. Keep Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a significant popular culture phenomenon with reputable secondary sources discussing it -- though I'm the author of one of them. -Reagle (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Geek girl per E.M.Gregory, it's a subset of the Geek girl topic (e.g. fake geek girls wouldn't exist if geek girls didn't) and isn't distinct enough from it to come under WP:RELART and justify a content fork, IMO. Alcherin (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - the content is important; where is goes is less so. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Geek girl, per E.M.Gregory (talk)  Montanabw (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Geek girl. I agree there is certainly material there, but I don't believe this rises to a level of notability where it deserves its own page. Maybe in the future. But until then, the content that is good will be nice in the other article. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Geek girl there is some interesting information here, but not enough to warrant it's own article. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2017 (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.