Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank (3rd 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. Fanwank made me smile Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fanwank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable neologism/dicdef Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that this article has been merged, split, deleted, and undeleted in the past. If it is deleted, a soft redirect to wikt:fanwank seems to be in order. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply throughout this activities the article was utterly unreferenced, i.e., itself was an example of fanwanking in times when wikipedia was rather lax about its content. Therefore any merges/splits (if any) were in fact propagation of the violation of wikipedia's the most basic rule WP:NOR. Moreover, it was tagged to be merged in "fanon" however this tag was removed as no consensus, and I saw no tracing of merging. I see no signs of splitting. It was restored on the basis or copyright preservation of the possibly re-used content. I don't think we must protect copyright of stuff added against basic wikipedia rules. Let them sue, and I am sure an admin will gladly restore the content into their user page. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable neologism. Edison (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems to me this is an important concept that warrants an article. A quick Google search demonstrates the term is being used widely. I've added a good academic journal citation to back the main definition. However, WP:NEO requires not just usage of the term but WP:RS articles about the term and I've done less well so far on those. A wiktionary re-direct, as per Cnilep, would be my second choice. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fandom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent vulgarity. Warden (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am with Warden on this one. This is not an encyclopedia article. -- Y not? 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.