Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandom Wank


 * 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 of the debate was keep. –  Rob e  rt  00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fandom Wank
DELETE IT. It is a bunch of stupid people making fun of other stupid people. It is STUPID!

What the hell? Don't delete this entry. Fandom_Wank is great. However, it is addicting. Hmmm.. Don't delete it anyway. -Lurker

It is big online community, but it is also quite rude and, in my opinion, dull. Notable? Fplay 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, 50,000 google hits, high profile in the livejournal world. Rudeness of the subject isn't a criterion for deletion. rodii 18:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not G-rated. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing like 50,000 Google hits. Most of those are link spam farms. Only 271 "unique" hits, as counted by Google. As soon as you hit 211, it's all crap. See here. Those links are basically all blogroll links. 3,000 users fails WP:WEB criteria and the page asserts no particular encyclopedicity. Wow, so it's a place for people on the Internet to argue with one another. What makes it different from the eleventy trillion other sites where people argue? It's also all unverified. Add it up, and that spells Delete. FCYTravis 00:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable internet groups. --badlydrawnjeff 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- JJay 21:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is more than a traditional encyclopedia Robertbrockway 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Internet group. You want to get rid of Fandom wank, get rid of GNAA first.--T-Boy 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a notable internet group and there's really no reason for the article to be deleted. 16:49, 15 December 2005.
 * Strong Keep I would not have found out about this group if not for this article, and I am grateful for it. Describing something as "STUPID" has absolutely no value and no utility, by the way. --SpacemanAfrica 00:03, 17 December 2005 (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.