Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan (fan)

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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stan (fan)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing currently here is pretty shoddy, with most of the content coming from unreliable blogs and Urban Dictionary(!!!). Several sources used here, including in the sections "Fan bases of stans" (the bulk of the article) and "Celebrity reaction", do not mention the term "stan". That leaves coverage in one New York Times article and passing mentions in ESPN and MTV blogs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a spot check of sources, they really don't seem to be discussing a fan called a "stan", though they are tangentially related. The parts that are actually about a phenomenon that references Eminem's song can probably be merged to that article. Otherwise, the rest of it could probably be merged to fandom or cult following. Honestly, I'd rather nothing get added to cult following, though, because that article doesn't need any more rambling, poorly-sourced content. I swear, some day in the next few years, I'll get around to rewriting it. Some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a close call, though I found a decent piece from The Wire, which is connected to The Atlantic. With that and The New York Times, it can warrant a separate article. However, I do agree that more sources should explicitly mention stans. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are pretty good. I still think it could be merged, but a keep vote seems reasonable, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this isn't really an encyclopedia article about a phenomenon — it's just a dictionary definition of a term, whose most substantive content is a list of the various subterms that particular fandoms use for themselves. That's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, and the referencing here is for crap, to boot. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a good article about this, but this version isn't a good article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fan stalking is a clear and well defined notion, studied like in Kerry O. Ferris, Through a Glass, Darkly: The Dynamics of Fan-Celebrity Encounters, 22 December 2011. --Dereckson (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.