Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight fandom


 * 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) Esquivalience t 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Twilight fandom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that there is anything resembling an actual organized fandom, as compared to the fandoms of everything from Firefly to Insane Clown Posse. A mere nickname does not constitute a fandom. Even the "convention" was apparently an ad-hoc commercial show put on to extract money from suckers. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Rename - I know very little about the subject matter at hand (nor do I want to know, for the record), but I would point out that the term "Twihard" (i.e. a die-hard Twilight fan) seems to have a reasonable amount of coverage in R.S. Perhaps this would be a rename? NickCT (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. Go team Edward.
 * Weak keep with 50 Shades the news we've certainly been hearing a lot about Twilight fandom and the Twilight fanfic community lately, so I assume it can be expanded, but the actual article here seems very weak. Artw (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea that the fandom for Twilight is insignificant is absurd. I have just added a couple of books about the phenomenon to the page and there's plenty more material out there.  Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think that the article should be kept, as the topic is probably notable, although it clearly requires cleanup and expansion. BenLinus  1214 talk 23:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are fans of movies, songs, actors everywhere so I'm failing to understand what makes this one so special ?, Personally I see no harm with perhaps merging in to Twilight. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well seeing as we have Star Trek fandom I guess there's no harm in having a Twilight fan thing, Meh I'm not overly convinced on keeping but I'll go with the rest here .... – Davey 2010 Talk 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)






 * Keep and rename Twihards per THIS decent source and many others that show this topic of Twilight fandom as meeting inclusion criteria. Sorry ... sorry ...  a properly sourced fan or cult following is a decent criteria of notability. Article can benefit from expansion and development.   Organized as some "official" fan club or not, the series having fans is a global phenomena.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There's really no difference between this and Star Trek fandom except how long they've been around. And that this happens to be dominated by young females. But I think the current title should be kept since "Twihard" is hardly well-known outside the movement itself. Even the far more well-known "Trekkies" isn't used as an actual article title. Peter Isotalo 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question to Orange Mike: You've edited some pretty darned specific fandom articles like Browncoat and GAFIA. Would you honestly say that either of those are more notable? Peter Isotalo 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)--
 * Reply to very reasonable question - Browncoats are much more heavily documented, and more organized, as well as being responsible in large part for the very existence of Serenity the film. They are active in ways that Twihards are not, and have thus become more notable to the mundane world. GAFIA is a more marginal case, tipping (barely) over the line from dictionary entry primarily because it has been used in the titles of science fiction fanzines by three notable figures of the field, has spawned derivative terms, and was used extensively in a commercially-published novel by some highly notable writers, which sold well. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that your core argument is that there is "less documentation" of this than the classic sci-fi fandoms. I personally doubt that Twilight fans actually are "less organized", but even if they are, notability for fandom topics isn't dictated by sci-fi fans. They might have been around longer and have seen more exposure, but they certainly don't dictate notability criteria.. In sheer numbers, Twilight fandom is most likely comparable to Beatlesmania. With all of that in mind, and the clear consensus against deletion that seems to be building, I think you should consider withdrawing the AfD. Peter Isotalo 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an actual fandom with a significant female fanbase. Not sure why this isn't as important as the Star Wars Star Trek one per Peter Isotalo. Aside from the policy-based arguments, personal experience and research on Fanfiction.Net finds it the fandom with the second-largest amount of fanfiction written, just behind Harry Potter. I don't see how it's non-notable. Twilight clearly is a popular series, how does it not have fans? &mdash; kikichugirl  oh hello! 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peter and Kikichugirl above ( Star Treak, Star Wars...different things :P). There is a huge fanbase for this and the sources exists. I see no reason why not to keep it. P.S. Go team BELLA. Bella! You don't need a man! (t) Josve05a  (c) 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia catalogs a lot of pointless pop culture fluff once it reaches the mainstream, and fan communities are one example.  Although older fan communities are more established and have the weight of scholarly investigation, there's still a ton of hits for "twihard" on Google News, including this article from The Hollywood Reporter about how a parody resulted in legal action.  It has obviously become a serious topic in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peter and others. By the way, Twihard has been a redirect to it since 2013. -- do  ncr  am  23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, although I am against a rename per WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (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.