Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fandom wank

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fandom wank was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous however, even after discarding the probable sockpuppets and anonymous votes, there is not a clear consensus to delete. By default, the article is kept for now. Rossami 23:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A non-notable website. Andris 16:59, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, basically a blog. --Golbez 17:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing to Keep if and only if it can be expanded the way 4chan, et.al. have. As it is, it's an unnotable blog; if it is indeed so notable, then it can have more than a paragraph. So, a provisional keep. --Golbez 14:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • how boring. I was secretly hoping it would be about intimate practices involving ropes, chains and judiciously applied voltage from the local telephone system. Delete. --Ianb 18:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No, that would be modem wank. :D --Golbez 19:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am against bondage and domination substub breakouts concerning fans humiliating their favorite stars and insulting...oh. Delete for Wikipedia not being a web directory. Geogre 19:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Someone double-check, but I'm sure this has been listed before ... 82.6.10.139 14:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: if so, and it survived, the VfD comment page should be archived on the respective talk page, which is currently empty. --Ianb 17:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: FW is now a cultural phenomenon within fandom. The words, "You've been Fandom Wanked!" have brought threads, LJ communities, messageboards, and even entire fandoms to a screeching halt. Sometimes, even accusing someone of being "wanky" is enough to start a full-fledged flamewar. Fandom Wank: it's not just a dessert topping, it's part of fannish lexicon!nmw 09:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Note. The above was the first (and, so far, the only) edit by User:Nmwallace. Andris 10:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: that may well be the case, but I - and the rest of the world not involved in "fandom wanking" - would never have guessed, which makes the article a bit pointless, and just a random (offensive sounding) website ad. Feel free to expand on the phenomonen and transform this article into something informative. What's an "LJ community" btw? --Ianb 11:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: The article needs expansion to include the history of Fandom_Wank, which has its own subculture and a massive following. It could be made into something far more than what it currently is. It doesn't need deletion, it just needs content. thephotoman | talk
    • Note. The above vote [1] was cast by an anon with 68.201.215.156 IP adress. Andris 10:29, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Note. the above vote, linked in that comment, was indeed by thephotoman, who just has no clue what the hell he's doing. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-notable blog. "FW" is hardly a "cultural phenomenon within fandom". "Bringing entire fandoms to a halt" is pretty blatant hyperbole, and asserting that any time somebody calls someone "wanky" is a reference to a specific blog is just silly. — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Appearantly, you've not seen fandom wank bring fandoms to a halt. I have--and I've been in the fandoms that it's brought to the dead stop. It's really fun to watch. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • comment: Yes? And which fandoms were they? Do you really mean to tell me that this website caused large groups of people to lose interest in things they liked? If you can expand on that, add it to the article and maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise, it's a substub signifying nothing. — Gwalla | Talk 03:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Actually, the massive drama has caused people to lose interest in the communities surrounding the things they liked. Fandom_Wank tends to lay the dirty laundry out in the open so that everyone can get a good laugh at it. However, some people don't like the drama that they get themselves involved in (usually due to involvement in some subcommunity that has been posted to Fandom Wank) that they "leave fandom", or just leave the community. This happens with some regularity in the Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings--Real People Slash (involving writing homoerotic fiction about the actors in the films by Peter Jackson) fandoms. It should be appended, but there are people who know far more about it than what I've seen. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and heavily expand. Fandom Wank has made itself quite well known within many fandoms. Wikipedia has entries for far less notable entities. Aris Katsaris 03:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a fandom institution now, according the jf.net admins, who undeleted it when the mods took it down for a laugh. It's inspired jokes and icons all over LJ. Nostalgia 13:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. --Dittaeva 21:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no useful content - SimonP 15:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has become culturally significant in the on-line fandoms ~ Random
  • Keep. It has had an impact on fandom behavior. If fandom is mentioned here, fandom_wank should be as well. It has become noticable because it is a hub where people of many different fandoms cluster, meaning it's sort of a news source, in a way.
  • Keep. Fandom wank is a meaningful site for people in fandom on the internet. 1889 people with accounts on the Journalfen watch the community; many others visit the site without bothering to make an account, or do not visit the site but act in a certain way because it is there (i.e., keeping their obnoxious behavior in blog entries intended only for their circle of acquaintances so as not to get "wanked" on fandom_wank). The entry should be expanded to make it more useful to people trying to figure out what is going on in certain online fandom subcultures. Mayhap 07:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Definitely. We need our listing here, dammit, people! And, also, as aforementioned, if you've got a listing for 'fandom' (and especially 'Harry Potter', the archnemesis of Fandom_Wank) you should definitely have this here for completeness. El Juno 01:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

  • Keep (And where did my other comment go where I voted to keep? Did that get editted out? Why was my vote edited out?) Fandom Wank is comparable to other articles like FanFiction.Net in terms of relevance to the fan fiction community. A google test on it shows 282,000 search results. The site is relevant to fan scholars doing research on fan fiction studies. The community influences fannish language that occassionally crosses over into non-fannish circles. --PurplePopple 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fandom_wank&oldid=357516221"