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. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon fan

[edit]

I have watchlisted this article for ages, and it just hasn't improved. I'm talking years here, and sometimes when an article doesn't improve, it means it's just not an encyclopedic topic. This article is a magnet for people who want to say what teams/sports figures attract bandwagon fans, who is a bandwagon fan, the supposed characteristics of bandwagon fans... but it's really all just opinions, sure it can be sourced to some column by some sportswriter, but it's not very meaningful. This is the sort of concept that we need a dictionary definition for, but it really can't be covered encyclopedically, since it's just a simple definition - anything further is just partisan opinion. Send this to Wiktionary if they want it, but I don't see how we can have a decent encyclopedia article here. --W.marsh 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that North Asia (AfD discussion) took almost five years to improve, and that, too, was argued to be impossible to cover in a verifiable manner. This may not be the case here, of course. But observe that it sometimes does take articles years to improve, and sometimes requires that an editor come along who will look for actual sources on the subject.
Having said that, what I find in discussions of "bandwagon fans" is mostly personal opinion, and extreme personal opinion at that. There doesn't seem to be any reliable source, that is actually attempting to present a factual discussion of the subject, available. However, there are serious discussions on the subject of fan loyalty to be had, contrasting fairweather fans with loyal fans, and discussing the several psychological factors that combine to create fan loyalty. See ISBN 7302090165 page 274, for example.
I suggest a quick rename and refactor to fan loyalty. You can use the aforementioned source and ISBN 0805850449 page xxx (sic!), both of whom report on studies by psychologists. Who feels up to the challenge? Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you've done it again, Uncle G. I was trying to find something like fan psychology or fan culture to redirect to but nothing existed at the time. I'm fine with a redirect to your new article... if an uninvolved admin wants to speedy close this. --W.marsh 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Uncle G's proposal is marginally acceptable, only I'd say that the content should be added to Fan (person). A section on loyalty could be present there, but I still think it qualifies as a neologism. The first line of WP:NEO says "but may be used widely or within certain communities", which is echoed in the article's first line - that the term is "used among sports fans and sports writers." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps for the time being, a redirect to Fan (person), until the section can be fleshed out and spun-out to Fan loyalty. But, these are editorial decisions. Uncle G has demonstrated how this is a viable, encyclopedic topic. Pastordavid (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (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.