Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank (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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fanwank
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Second nomination. The result of the first nom was merge with Fanon (fiction) (original AfD debate here). This was in November 2006 and the merge has not taken place, apparently as a result of 'no consensus' on the Fanon (fiction) talk page as to exactly what to merge and whether a merge was even appropriate. The merge tag has since been removed.

The Fanwank article itself still has the same problems that led to the first nomination. These are mainly that the article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006 (failing WP:ATT), and exists to define a term (failing WP:NOT). Due to the lack of suitable sources the contents are indistinguishable from original research, and consequently notability for the subject cannot be independently established. EyeSereneTALK 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; I'm not convinced this is article fits with Wikipedia's mission. The word is not widely used and the underlying concept does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Cedars 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Although, looking at the article my initial reaction was keep, reviewing the guideline on Articles on neologisms and their acceptable sources which states, Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia., it is evident the article is OR/DICTDEF. This applies equally to Fanon (fiction) which is also a candidate for AfD. → AA (talk • contribs) — 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The merge did not take place due to objections at Talk:Fanon. The concepts are, while similar, distinct, and it was felt that the merge was therefore inappropriate.  "About" 26,000 ghits, plus 3,000 for the alternative spelling "fan wank", suggests that the original concern of the word being a neologism is probably no longer true.  Potential reliable sources for a definition include . JulesH 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: To quote from the original AfD: "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", and "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". Solid points. It is not of any consequence that the merge proposed by the original AfD was eventually rejected; the fact that it was countermanded simply militates strongly against this second AfD. As noted above and in the original AfD, there are nearly 30,000 Google hits for this term, and it has been proven in the original AfD discussion beyond any shadow of a doubt that the term, as conceived here, predates its appearance on Wikipedia, obviating any WP:NEO concerns.  Yes, the article is flawed, but that is not a rationale for deletion (rather, for cleanup), nor for an already-rejected merger. NB: WP:ATT should not be cited in AfD; it is not policy, but a summarizing essay (i.e., please be more specific and dare I say canonical in citing WP policies and guidelines).  WP:DICT is not an issue, as the article is hardly a simple dictionary definition, but an exploration of the meaning of the term and its real-world variations and what effect they have, in particular with critical attention turned toward fan fiction and the follies of Hollywood's attempts at canonicalism; Wiktionary would certainly not cover any of that.  WP:DICT is simply outright mis-cited here.  Yes, the article has sourcing problems under WP:V, some of which could be construed as a WP:NOR issue, and these do indicate that the article needs work.  These do not, however, lead to a WP:N issue, as the deletion nominator suggests. Notability is very well established, and editors self-evidently more well-versed in the fanon subject than either myself or the nominator have already rejected the earlier AfD's non-specialist consensus for a merge as impractical and inappropriate; I've yet to see a rationale for overthrowing their group decision.  I conclude that those who feel so strongly that this article needs work need to work on it instead of trying to make it vanish for unsupportable reasons. PS: To above "delete" commentators: How can the evident broad usage of this term support your ideas that it is a neologism (in WP:NEO terms), or that coverage of it is nonencyclopedic, or much less that the term isn't actually used?  I'm sorry if some are squeamish about terms that use sexually-charged slang like "wank", but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ATT summarises two core policies (WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR) - I sometimes cite it for brevity, to save listing both policies separately, where an article clearly fails both policies. The fact that an "unreferenced" tag has been on the article for over a year should in itself be an indication that there are fundamental problems with sourcing... to the extent that sources that meet Wikipedia standards possibly don't exist. Hence "original research". The notability issue arises in part because of this - the onus is on the article itself to justify its existence. Ghits are a very imprecise way to establish notability: all they show is that a word is used by some people in some circumstances. The word "flurble" turns up 17,000+ ghits, and I entered it as a made-up, nonsense word. Where are the links to uses of fanwank as defined by the article in multiple, independent, reliable sources? As for "wank", WP is not censored. It's a non-issue, and formed no part of the decision to nominate. For me though, the single biggest issue is that, whichever way you slice it, this article only exists to define the meaning and usage of a word. That makes it a dictionary definition, and a violation of WP:NOT outright. The rest is just window-dressing ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry if that sounded "wikipolitical"; I don't think WP:ATT is the devil or anything, it just isn't precise enough for XfD use in my opinion. To get to the meat of the matter: I disagree in that the presence of a cleanup tag for an extended period of time simply means that editors have not spent enough attention and time on the article in question; it does not mean that the problems are insoluble or that there is something inherently irreparable about the article or its nature. Just as a matter of logic.  Topics are "sexy" or not for rather arbitrary, unpredicatable reasons. Regarding "wank" and censorship, I was responding to the "delete" !voter immediately after the nomination, not to the nomination.  Re: "flurble", even I've heard that term before.  I can't recall the alleged meaning, but I'm almost dead certain I heard it on The Simpsons, along with "d'oh" and "cromulent", etc., and I hardly ever watch that show; it frequently introduces nonce words that rapidly get absorbed by the culture, and which are reintroduced in subsequent episodes, reinforcing the absorption, so many G'hits for it is not surprising; try "sarcomulation" and "queeblor", two that I just made up out of nowhere, by way of contrast.  I'll be surprised if you get a single hit for either, despite both of them being perfectly valid potential words by English phonetic and morphological rules.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: No offense taken. Getting further off topic, I thought I'd made up "flurble" on the spot, and don't recall hearing it before, but it's perfectly possible it came from the underbrain somewhere ;) Whatever, it wasn't an attempt to be disingenuous - I was trying to illustrate the point that googling a word does little more than prove the word is in use; it doesn't in itself establish notability. EyeSereneTALK 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to people looking for use of this term: the same concept is also known by the name "fandom wank", although it is difficult to search for uses of this phrase because it is also the name of a rather popular web site devoted to cataloguing instances thereof. JulesH 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To pick another word, embiggen receives 55,600 Google hits and that's not even a real word. If you pick a real word like obsequious you get 682,000 hits. For a word, 26,200 is a puny number of hits. Cedars 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: See above; "embiggen" along with "cromulent" and various other nonce words is well-documented as having been introduced by The Simpsons to an audience of tens of millions, so of course it produces tens of thousands of Google hits. The fact that "fanwank" or "fan wank" produce almost 30K G'hits (without the benfit of being featured on one of the most popular TV shows of all time) demonstrates that it is in fact a term in notable current usage.  By constrast, try "gymnostolism" or "anticonflatoristicism" or "olfark". PS: See Neologism for a link to an article about terms introduced by The Simpsons...quite a number of them. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply comment This still doesn't get around the fact that Wikipedia is not a catalogue of words. If you're interested in writing an open content dictionary, you might like to visit http://en.wiktionary.org/. Cedars 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Already addressed above; the article goes far beyond a dictionary definition, whatever flaws it might still have. I appear to be putting out a flaming straw man here; I never asserted that because it is a valid word it is a valid article. I'm a firm believer in WP:DICT. If the article were just a dicdef I would have AfD'd it myself. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It does indeed which is why I initially thought 'keep'. However, all of it is OR with a few refs on where it's been used. I did some searching on google but could not find any links where the term is the subject in a reliable source. → AA (talk • contribs) — 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:SMcCandlish Taprobanus 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This probably refers to SMcCandlish's first comment above rather than his talk page EyeSereneTALK 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Thought so - thanks for the clarification, Taprobanus ;) EyeSereneTALK 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I imagine so. :-) My user page does not address this in any way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - extended dicdef of a very, very niche term. Perhaps it can be stuffed in Fan fiction terminology and redirected there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note:Just for the record, the above appears to actually be a delete or merge !vote. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is nothing more than a fluffy dicdef. The article has absolutely no WP:RS to demonstrate that the term is in any way notable or in widespread use.  Not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and is not a cognizable deletion criterion under Wikipedia deletion policy. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. If you're insistant upon wikilawyering this specifics, let me rephrase.  It has no WP:RS to satisfy WP:V which is a policy and not just a guideline - which by the way ought to be followed all the same.  Bear in mind that WP:DP does indeed state a valid reason for deletion is "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" so the mandate for reliable sources is clear.  Finally the deletion policy makes clear that valid reasons for deletion are not limited to the provided list.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret WP:V and piles of WP:AFD precedent in this matter. There is no evidence at all that much of an effort has been made to source this, and you certainly demonstrate no evidence of any such attempt on your part, so your claim that "all attempts...have failed" falls flat.  Come back after three days of demonstrable research and this claim would carry some weight. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - not those who dispute its accuracy. This is not my (mis)interpretation of the policy, this is a direct quotation.  It is not my responsibility to prove that information cannot be verified.  If the folks arguing for the inclusion of this article are unwilling or unable to do so then this article fails criteria, plain and simple.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I've already said that the article clearly needs sourcing work. My point was merely that the "all attempts" clause only applies when there is clear evidence of said effort. :-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I dont quite get the "predates its appearance on wikipedia" part. This is a violation of WP:NEO.  - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term".  No such reliable secondary sources are established here. Corpx 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a neologism and fails WP:NEO. Jay32183 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - saw it a week ago and considered PROD-ding it. Darrenhusted 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has gone on long enough. Delete it an move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom, Corpx and Jay32183 - fchd 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability requirements. In particular, there are not enought reliable sources to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. I think any present uses of the term outside of Wikipedia to mean "work of fiction" are because of Wikipedia's publication of this Fanwank article. Wikipedia should not be the originator of information. Also, wank can be a derogatory term and I think referring to fanwork as fanwank needs to be referenced.. The term might come from Wankhede Stadium fans (Wank fans or fan wanks). Also, in the Peter Hobday book The Girl in Rose: Haydn's Last Love, the pornographic name of the Scott family's servant is Fanny Wankland (e.g., fanwank). In any case the article and topic do not meet Wikipedia process. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, Corpx, Jay32183 and fchd -- and merge into Fan fiction terminology as per Starblind. Bearian 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. Perfectly good wiki article; I've encountered the phenomenon surrounding several works of fiction (mostly SF) before, without realizing that there was a term for it. Robinh 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and merge (into fan fiction terminology, along with fanon). This is not a dictionary; the term has no notability of its own, and belongs in the broader article, like 'hurt/comfort' and other specialized jargon. -- Orange Mike 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SMcCandlish. Captain Infinity 03:33, 21 July 2007 (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.