Deletion of Fanwank (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 . If the article were just a dicdef I would have AfD'd it myself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT)

Comment: Does not meet |notability requirements. In particular, there are not enought |reliable sources to develop a POV|neutral and unbiased OT|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 termhttp://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=wank 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).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/06/27/bohob27.xml In any case the article and topic do not meet Wikipedia process
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:V)

Comment: I dont quite get the "predates its appearance on wikipedia" part.  This is a violation of .  - "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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: This is nothing more than a fluffy dicdef.  The article has absolutely no  to demonstrate that the term is in any way notable or in widespread use.  Not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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  concerns.  Yes, the article is flawed, but that is not a rationale for deletion (rather, for cleanup), nor for an already-rejected merger. NB:  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).   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.   is simply outright mis-cited here.  Yes, the article has sourcing problems under , some of which could be construed as a  issue, and these do indicate that the article needs work.  These do not, however, lead to a  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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:NEO||WP:ATT||WP:DICT||WP:DICT||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:NEO||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: This is a neologism and fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: WP:ATT summarises two core policies ( and ) - 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 #DICT outright. The rest is just window-dressing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:NOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and is not a cognizable deletion criterion under |Wikipedia deletion policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: Sorry if that sounded "wikipolitical"; I don't think  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: Although, looking at the article my initial reaction was keep, reviewing the guideline on #Articles on neologisms|Articles on neologisms and their #Reliable sources for neologisms|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO)