Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanwank (2nd nomination)
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
— User:EyeSerene, 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:VERIFY||WP:NOR||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Verifiability)