Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faxlore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. WjBscribe 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a dicdef. The article starts out talking about urban legends spread by fax. The article then just talks about various urban legends that already have their own articles and have nothing to do with this article. Original research, the only citations are for the urban legends and not for the term Faxlore. Ridernyc 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's so easy to dash off the line "basically a dicdef". This one is about a phenomenon of the 1990s, and has references and sources. It is neither "dick" nor "deaf" Mandsford 13:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a distinct cultural phenomenon; it may haven fallen by the wayside in the last decade, but not too long ago xeroxlore and faxlore were rampant. It could stand some cleanup, but the subject is noteworthy. —dustmite 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable neogolism. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the existence of the term, let alone its notability. --Gavin Collins 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I began this article, some years ago. The term "faxlore" is not something I made up; I first encountered it in one of the books by Jan Brunvand, the folklorist who popularized the notion of "urban legends". Not sure if it's original to him. At any rate, it's a recognized term; Google Scholar yields ten hits, reasonable enough for a 1980s and 1990s pop culture phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added a reference to one of the Brunvand books, the one closest to hand; just about all of his have examples. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. We also have photocopylore, which is even sparser than this article. I suggest that the two articles perhaps should merge, and in any case should share a common fate. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another comment - the photocopylore was apparently requested as a missing encyclopedia article; see the history. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm familiar with the Brunvand refs as well. Surely the Folklorists out their have journals of their own that have generated reliable sources for this... - Mdbrownmsw 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not thrilled with the title (it implies a dicdef to my sensibilities), but the subject of the article is notable and well documented. -Harmil 00:09, 8 November 2007 (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.