Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fansite


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure), unanimous consensus to keep now. VasileGaburici (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fansite

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see little in this article besides a definition, and no references. The fansite phenomenon is probably worth an article, but the current article is just defining a neologism. VasileGaburici (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nominator states "The fansite phenomenon is probably worth an article...".  The current article could be made a one sentence stub, that's no reason to delete it. 2005 (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my first afd, but articles from which little can be salvaged have been deleted before. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: having an article deleted does not preclude it from being recreated with proper content. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles because they could be better or are poorly written. 2005 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. Criteria for deletion exist. VasileGaburici (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've done a google scholar search for fansite and for "fan site", and there's hardly anything there to base an encyclopedic article on; don't be fooled by the hit count for "fan site", it's mentioned in passing, but it's also used with other meanings. I thought someone must have written something substantial about the phenomenon, but I'd be damned if can find and article on it. I honestly don't see how the unsourced generalities from this article can be improved upon. And if you remove those generalities, all that is left is a dictionary definition. As the Mzoli article showed, you can find references if you are knowledgeable enough about the topic. But I'm certainly no sociologist, so it beats me how to move this article above the deletion waterline... Feel free to prove me wrong with references. VasileGaburici (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Okay, I'm convinced by the discussion here, and improvements to article in the mean time that enough material exists for an article on fansite. I'll move to non-admin closure (WP:SNOW), so people stop wasting their time here. VasileGaburici (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think that the problem with such a name is that it is difficult to separate within a google search those covering the topic of fan sites and individual fan site listings. I think that the very fact that so many hits for "fan sites" for different people or whatever demonstrate the notability of the topic. I don't think it's so easy to apply the normal AfD google-test here, but I believe that notability is demonstrated, if unconventionally, and this has the potential to be a good article. This may be the "occasional exception". – Toon (talk)  17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Week keep Needs a total rewrite and focus shift but I believe the subject itself to be worthy of an article.  Here's a quick source to show that scholarly research is being done on the topic. Themfromspace (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also the article would need to be rewritten so it would be hard to linkspam, as I could imagine spammers plastering the article up in no time. Themfromspace (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been there for four years with little linkspam problems, so while it may be easy to imagine it could happen, it hasn't. 2005 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see what a stub-level article buys us here. The same goes for fanwork and fanposter, which have even less content. There's already a "parent" article on fandom, which is in pretty bad shape as far as content and organization are concerned. Having all these separate stubs and a crappy main article doesn't seem a good way to organize this stuff. The little information that Fansite provides can be merged there, improving that article. There's a Salon.com article called "Who owns fandom?" linked from fandom, which is mainly about fan sites coming under pressure and their consolidation under fandom.com, but covers other topics as well. VasileGaburici (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could use some love, but is no worse than other stub-level content.  The phenomenon has even attracted scholarly attention (see  for an example).  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Themfromspace and Serpent's Choice. I don't feel deletion is the right choice here. JuJube (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Problems listed by the nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion, the article now has several sources, and even the nominator thinks the subject deserves an article. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable topic, though it needs work. We do not delete stubs if they can be expanded. Consider also that the term appears in our policies--i.e., we do not put in external links to such sites and normally don't use them as references.DGG (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable but needs work. --Sydius (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (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.