- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 17:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
List of fandom names
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of fandom names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure, unadulterated WP:LISTCRUFT. This article exemplifies what Wikipedia is not. Most of these wouldn't even find a proper home in their target article, let alone creating a list of "Random source X called fans of artist Y, Zs" (if you're lucky). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep fandoms are very much a legitimate subject matter. Some might be more prominent than others (i.e. Deadheads for Grateful Dead and Trekkies for Star Trek are probably among the most famous), but I wouldn't call this listcruft. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Week keep based on current sources. Clearly
Fandom itself is a notable topic, as are many of the listed fandoms; the question here is whether this article passes
WP:LISTN. Concretely: have "names of fandoms" been
discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources
? The list certainly has a lot of sources, but they do not all fulfill this requirement. But these ones in particular seem to:
- The Atlantic article "Beliebers, Directioners, Barbz: What's With Pop's Fanbase-Nickname Craze?" is great; directly discusses "'names of fandoms" and passes all the requirements of WP:GNG.
- Vulture article "From Trekkies to Twihards: How to Name Your Fandom" is on-topic, but the analysis is a little shallow. Others may take issue at the reliability as well. Seems a decent source to show notability.
- Some of the fandom names are very poorly sourced, e.g. to social media post or fan sites. But this is not a good argument for deletion; the correct remedy is to resource these list items or delete them from the list. Other sources are reliable, but do not imply notability because they discuss only a single fandom name instead of the
group
of fandom names as a whole. Overall, we should look for more sources like the two listed above to confirm notability. BenKuykendall ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)- A ham sandwich could past LISTN. LISTN is broken. And it's being applied too casually here anyway. Just because you can find a couple puff pieces about naming of fandoms doesn't mean we should have a list of the most obscure shit we can find. The Atlantic piece could be used to add some content to the Fandom article itself, but it doesn't justify the existence of this list. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Some of these fandoms have their own articles. All are notable since reliable sources cover them.
Dream Focus 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Uh no, practically none of these are notable. And the existence of an extremely sparse handful that do actually qualify for articles doesn't justify the existence of this entire list. This isn't a list of fandoms; this is a list of the nickname of fandoms (or members thereof). Not only that, but most of the sources are garbage. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- 43 of them link to their own articles, so I don't see why you would call that "extremely sparse handful". There are 210 references, if you have a problem with any of them discuss it on the talk page or search for a better one with a simple Google news search. Dream Focus 00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Uh no, practically none of these are notable. And the existence of an extremely sparse handful that do actually qualify for articles doesn't justify the existence of this entire list. This isn't a list of fandoms; this is a list of the nickname of fandoms (or members thereof). Not only that, but most of the sources are garbage. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The nominator's arguments are undercut by their tone of disdain for the subject, and disrespect for the people participating in this discussion. "A ham sandwich could pass LISTN, LISTN is broken" is not a good reason to delete this article. If you have a problem with the policy, then you should try to get the policy amended. Use of the word "(x)cruft" usually means a barely-concealed WP:IDONTLIKEIT just below the surface, but "a list of the most obscure shit we can find" is saying the subtext out loud. Also, blowing off 210 sources as "mostly garbage" is a heavy lift; shrugging off good-quality sources when they're identified doesn't help. I get that the nominator really doesn't like this article. All I can do is offer support in this difficult time. — Toughpigs ( talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how this is a list of fandom names and not "a list of names someone once referred to the fandom as". Outside of extremely well-known names like
Trekkie, there are few fandoms with a clear and obvious name for their fans. For example,
Stargate fandom is not called
Gater. The current keep votes do not advance any convincing argument besides
WP:ITSIMPORTANT.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Stargate_fandom#Gaters says Brad Wright the cocreator of the shows uses the term. The Wikipedia article claims it didn't catch on, but it's used a lot in the online fan communities and also the show's executive producers use it in the DVD commentaries. Anyway, reliable sources say these are the names used, so that's what we go by. Dream Focus 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Way too much of this list is based on one twitter statement and other weak sourcing. There is no justfication for this list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I removed all the social media sources and corresponding list items. Not saying all remaining sources are good, but trimming the list and improving sourcing seems feasible. BenKuykendall ( talk) 05:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The sourcing for some of the items is suboptimal, but that's an argument to tag or trim those rows in the table, not to delete the whole page. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep but trim the article/remove bad sources. Fandom names are a notable social phenomenon. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 02:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:LISTN as has been discussed as a group/set ie. Fandom: identities and communities in a mediated world, Sportista: female fandom in the United States to name just a couple. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost ( talk) 17:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
List of fandom names
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of fandom names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure, unadulterated WP:LISTCRUFT. This article exemplifies what Wikipedia is not. Most of these wouldn't even find a proper home in their target article, let alone creating a list of "Random source X called fans of artist Y, Zs" (if you're lucky). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep fandoms are very much a legitimate subject matter. Some might be more prominent than others (i.e. Deadheads for Grateful Dead and Trekkies for Star Trek are probably among the most famous), but I wouldn't call this listcruft. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Week keep based on current sources. Clearly
Fandom itself is a notable topic, as are many of the listed fandoms; the question here is whether this article passes
WP:LISTN. Concretely: have "names of fandoms" been
discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources
? The list certainly has a lot of sources, but they do not all fulfill this requirement. But these ones in particular seem to:
- The Atlantic article "Beliebers, Directioners, Barbz: What's With Pop's Fanbase-Nickname Craze?" is great; directly discusses "'names of fandoms" and passes all the requirements of WP:GNG.
- Vulture article "From Trekkies to Twihards: How to Name Your Fandom" is on-topic, but the analysis is a little shallow. Others may take issue at the reliability as well. Seems a decent source to show notability.
- Some of the fandom names are very poorly sourced, e.g. to social media post or fan sites. But this is not a good argument for deletion; the correct remedy is to resource these list items or delete them from the list. Other sources are reliable, but do not imply notability because they discuss only a single fandom name instead of the
group
of fandom names as a whole. Overall, we should look for more sources like the two listed above to confirm notability. BenKuykendall ( talk) 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)- A ham sandwich could past LISTN. LISTN is broken. And it's being applied too casually here anyway. Just because you can find a couple puff pieces about naming of fandoms doesn't mean we should have a list of the most obscure shit we can find. The Atlantic piece could be used to add some content to the Fandom article itself, but it doesn't justify the existence of this list. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Some of these fandoms have their own articles. All are notable since reliable sources cover them.
Dream Focus 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Uh no, practically none of these are notable. And the existence of an extremely sparse handful that do actually qualify for articles doesn't justify the existence of this entire list. This isn't a list of fandoms; this is a list of the nickname of fandoms (or members thereof). Not only that, but most of the sources are garbage. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- 43 of them link to their own articles, so I don't see why you would call that "extremely sparse handful". There are 210 references, if you have a problem with any of them discuss it on the talk page or search for a better one with a simple Google news search. Dream Focus 00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Uh no, practically none of these are notable. And the existence of an extremely sparse handful that do actually qualify for articles doesn't justify the existence of this entire list. This isn't a list of fandoms; this is a list of the nickname of fandoms (or members thereof). Not only that, but most of the sources are garbage. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The nominator's arguments are undercut by their tone of disdain for the subject, and disrespect for the people participating in this discussion. "A ham sandwich could pass LISTN, LISTN is broken" is not a good reason to delete this article. If you have a problem with the policy, then you should try to get the policy amended. Use of the word "(x)cruft" usually means a barely-concealed WP:IDONTLIKEIT just below the surface, but "a list of the most obscure shit we can find" is saying the subtext out loud. Also, blowing off 210 sources as "mostly garbage" is a heavy lift; shrugging off good-quality sources when they're identified doesn't help. I get that the nominator really doesn't like this article. All I can do is offer support in this difficult time. — Toughpigs ( talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how this is a list of fandom names and not "a list of names someone once referred to the fandom as". Outside of extremely well-known names like
Trekkie, there are few fandoms with a clear and obvious name for their fans. For example,
Stargate fandom is not called
Gater. The current keep votes do not advance any convincing argument besides
WP:ITSIMPORTANT.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Stargate_fandom#Gaters says Brad Wright the cocreator of the shows uses the term. The Wikipedia article claims it didn't catch on, but it's used a lot in the online fan communities and also the show's executive producers use it in the DVD commentaries. Anyway, reliable sources say these are the names used, so that's what we go by. Dream Focus 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Way too much of this list is based on one twitter statement and other weak sourcing. There is no justfication for this list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I removed all the social media sources and corresponding list items. Not saying all remaining sources are good, but trimming the list and improving sourcing seems feasible. BenKuykendall ( talk) 05:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The sourcing for some of the items is suboptimal, but that's an argument to tag or trim those rows in the table, not to delete the whole page. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep but trim the article/remove bad sources. Fandom names are a notable social phenomenon. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 02:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:LISTN as has been discussed as a group/set ie. Fandom: identities and communities in a mediated world, Sportista: female fandom in the United States to name just a couple. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.