Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank (2nd nomination)
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
— User:SMcCandlish, 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CCC||WP:NEO||WP:ATT||WP:DICT||WP:DICT||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:NEO||WP:CENSOR (Wikipedia:Consensus)