531:: 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
395:
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
476:
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
535:
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
594:
the cocreator of the shows uses the term. The
Knowledge 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.
495:
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.
414:
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
322:
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.
211:
271:
701:
649:. 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.
205:
250:. 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). –
373:
164:
763:
553:
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
295:
111:
96:
769:
137:
132:
171:
141:
692:
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.
390:
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.
124:
486:
432:
307:
283:
259:
226:
193:
91:
84:
17:
362:? The list certainly has a lot of sources, but they do not all fulfill this requirement. But these ones in particular seem to:
336:
628:
Way too much of this list is based on one twitter statement and other weak sourcing. There is no justfication for this list.
400:
of fandom names as a whole. Overall, we should look for more sources like the two listed above to confirm notability.
387:
187:
105:
101:
783:
750:
731:
710:
682:
669:
658:
637:
618:
582:
545:
519:
490:
471:
436:
409:
342:
311:
287:
263:
66:
800:
633:
183:
128:
40:
354:
itself is a notable topic, as are many of the listed fandoms; the question here is whether this article passes
419:
piece could be used to add some content to the Fandom article itself, but it doesn't justify the existence of
779:
654:
482:
428:
405:
303:
279:
255:
233:
746:
566:
796:
697:
532:
36:
629:
120:
72:
62:
541:
448:
Some of these fandoms have their own articles. All are notable since reliable sources cover them.
243:
219:
199:
775:
650:
478:
424:
401:
330:
299:
275:
251:
742:
576:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
795:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
693:
596:
497:
449:
759:
587:
558:
355:
58:
741:
but trim the article/remove bad sources. Fandom names are a notable social phenomenon. --
722:
537:
54:
377:
324:
247:
376:
is great; directly discusses "'names of fandoms" and passes all the requirements of
679:
572:
557:, there are few fandoms with a clear and obvious name for their fans. For example,
158:
591:
374:"Beliebers, Directioners, Barbz: What's With Pop's Fanbase-Nickname Craze?"
565:. The current keep votes do not advance any convincing argument besides
554:
351:
562:
536:
article. All I can do is offer support in this difficult time. —
791:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
713:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
672:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
360:
discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources
154:
150:
146:
765:
Fandom: identities and communities in a mediated world
218:
388:"From Trekkies to Twihards: How to Name Your Fandom"
272:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
719:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
678:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
803:). No further edits should be made to this page.
294:Note: This discussion has been included in the
270:Note: This discussion has been included in the
771:Sportista: female fandom in the United States
232:
8:
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
358:. Concretely: have "names of fandoms" been
296:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
293:
269:
762:as has been discussed as a group/set ie.
397:
359:
7:
477:most of the sources are garbage. –
396:single fandom name instead of the
350:based on current sources. Clearly
24:
246:. This article exemplifies what
97:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
820:
784:14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
751:02:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
732:16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
702:17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
683:06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
659:05:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
638:16:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
619:17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
583:08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
546:01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
520:00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
491:22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
472:21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
437:22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
410:21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
343:16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
312:15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
288:15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
264:15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
793:Please do not modify it.
67:17:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
774:to name just a couple.
588:Stargate_fandom#Gaters
85:Articles for deletion
242:Pure, unadulterated
121:List of fandom names
73:List of fandom names
55:(non-admin closure)
734:
730:
685:
630:John Pack Lambert
580:
314:
290:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
811:
729:
727:
720:
718:
716:
714:
677:
675:
673:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
571:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
248:Knowledge is not
237:
236:
222:
174:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
819:
818:
814:
813:
812:
810:
809:
808:
807:
801:deletion review
735:
723:
721:
709:
707:
686:
668:
666:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
581:
567:WP:ITSIMPORTANT
559:Stargate fandom
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
179:
170:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
817:
815:
806:
805:
787:
786:
753:
717:
706:
705:
704:
676:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
641:
640:
623:
622:
621:
570:
561:is not called
548:
533:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
442:
441:
440:
439:
422:
393:
392:
391:
381:
364:
363:
345:
316:
315:
291:
240:
239:
176:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
816:
804:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
785:
781:
777:
776:Coolabahapple
773:
772:
767:
766:
761:
757:
754:
752:
748:
744:
740:
737:
736:
733:
728:
726:
715:
712:
703:
699:
695:
691:
688:
687:
684:
681:
674:
671:
660:
656:
652:
651:BenKuykendall
648:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
620:
617:
616:
593:
589:
586:
585:
584:
578:
574:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
547:
543:
539:
534:
530:
527:
521:
518:
517:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:Deacon Vorbis
475:
474:
473:
470:
469:
447:
444:
443:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:Deacon Vorbis
420:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
402:BenKuykendall
399:
394:
389:
385:
382:
379:
375:
371:
368:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
339:
334:
333:
328:
327:
321:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:Deacon Vorbis
297:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:Deacon Vorbis
273:
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:Deacon Vorbis
249:
245:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
792:
790:
770:
764:
755:
743:Prosperosity
738:
724:
708:
689:
667:
646:
625:
597:
550:
528:
498:
450:
445:
416:
383:
370:The Atlantic
369:
347:
337:
331:
325:
319:
244:WP:LISTCRUFT
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
167:
78:
49:
47:
31:
28:
592:Brad Wright
206:free images
725:Sandstein
694:XOR'easter
59:Jack Frost
797:talk page
538:Toughpigs
348:Week keep
37:talk page
799:or in a
760:WP:LISTN
758:, meets
711:Relisted
670:Relisted
417:Atlantic
386:article
372:article
356:WP:LISTN
326:SNUGGUMS
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
680:Spartaz
647:Comment
573:ZXCVBNM
555:Trekkie
423:list. –
384:Vulture
212:WP refs
200:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
626:Delete
551:Delete
487:videos
483:carbon
433:videos
429:carbon
378:WP:GNG
352:Fandom
308:videos
304:carbon
284:videos
280:carbon
260:videos
256:carbon
184:Google
142:delete
614:Focus
590:says
563:Gater
515:Focus
467:Focus
398:group
338:edits
227:JSTOR
188:books
172:Stats
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
780:talk
756:Keep
747:talk
739:Keep
698:talk
690:Keep
655:talk
634:talk
577:TALK
542:talk
529:Keep
446:KEEP
421:this
406:talk
332:talk
320:Keep
220:FENS
194:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
50:keep
298:. –
274:. –
234:TWL
163:– (
782:)
768:,
749:)
700:)
657:)
636:)
544:)
489:)
485:•
435:)
431:•
408:)
341:)
335:/
310:)
306:•
286:)
282:•
262:)
258:•
214:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
52:.
778:(
745:(
696:(
653:(
632:(
611:m
608:a
605:e
602:r
599:D
579:)
575:(
569:.
540:(
512:m
509:a
506:e
503:r
500:D
481:(
464:m
461:a
458:e
455:r
452:D
427:(
404:(
380:.
329:(
302:(
278:(
254:(
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
168:·
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.