Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Chakat

Chakat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A nearly unintelligible article on a fictional "creature" that seems be something the creator made up in school one day. The article puts forth no creditable claim of notability and, being a amateur construct, has no reliable sources outside the creator's personal website. To be frank I have no idea why this even has an article or why someone thought it would be a good idea to add this to the encyclopedia. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a free web hosting service to advertise your artwork. NeoFreak 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the format and wording of the article has changed since the initial nomination. While my oinion of the article's subject and its inclusion based on policy remains unchanged please review the article again if you have already cast a vote. Some justifications used for previous votes may no longer be applicable. NeoFreak 15:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as "furcruft." From what I can tell from an initial Google search, this appears to be related to furry culture, and although this Bernard Doove guy has created a heaping ton of info about it and it fits into some fanfiction Sci-Fi universe, I still don't understand its purpose (or maybe I just don't want to). Maybe this stuff has some merger potential somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm already too weirded out to search further. As the article stands, however, it does seem to fail WP:NOT per nom. -- Antepenultimate 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote, please see below. -- Antepenultimate 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, chakats are notable in the furry fandom, but only in the furry fandom. If someone wants to know what a chakat is, they will go to WikiFur. - ∅ (∅), 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite As I've stated on the Talk:Chakat page, If wikipedia is going to provend information on porn stars and obscure comic book characters then I can see no reason to delete such an article. I am unsure of how this article is something that was made up in school one day. HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Honeymane" is a typical chakat name, this user may identify as a chakat. :-) - ∅ (∅), 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Commet: Honeymade, have you read the notability guideline I linked? If you have I don't understand how this can be seen as anything but "something made up one day". You're right, Wikipedia is not a place for obscure porn stars, see WP:PORN. If you see pornstars that are featured here that do not meet that criteria then by all means prod or AfD those articles. Most minor comicbook characters are included in their parent comicbook articles or in a list. Those that don't fail WP:FICT. Again, if you see any violations of this feel free to prod or AfD them. Another important feature that distinguishes those aformentioned articles is that they have been published. This, on the other hand, is a pure amateur creation that is being advertised on wikipedia that has no interest to people outside a particular subculture (cruft). The people in that subculture can find this information at other more appropriate places such as the creator's webstie, fansites and dedicated wikis such as WikiFur. Violations of wikipedia policies and those policies' guidelines do not set a precedent for continued violation. I would recommend you review WP:NOT and WP:N. NeoFreak 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication why this is a notable word or work of fiction. Seraphimblade 04:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikifur for merging, then delete as per above. MER-C 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite: As the original creator of this text (but not the species) I cite the large amount of independent art and literature that has been created about this species, including this article. [[1]] [[2]] These are independently conceived and written works, and I assure you (as a writer) that the act of creating the two given examples was non-trivial. The fact that you may or may not like the species yourself does not change the fact that hundreds do. The fact that you don't understand why this species (among millions like it) has achieved that level of success is in fact a mark of potential interest to the wider community. ANTIcarrot 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of fan fiction on this subject demonstrates a 'cult following' though, which is a criteria for notability. I would also challenge you to name another fictional species which has achieved this level of popularity (or greater) or caused the creation of this amount and quality of work (not of creator origin) without being backed by a major publishing house or broadcasting organization. If you cannot, and no one else can, then that makes the species notable all by itself. ANTIcarrot 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fan fiction isn't a source, period; at least not in terms of any notability guideline I've ever read. We're talking published, independent, reliable sources. Think newspapers, scientific journals, informative television programs, and some web content - but not blogs, and in this case, probably not anything from www.furry.org. -- Antepenultimate 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The notability guidelines require the topic (chakats) to be the subject of multiple non trivial works (novels and very expensive art) whose sources (people who created the works) are independent of the subject itself (and its creator). The guidelines go on to say that 'published works' is a very broad category not limited to the examples given. If it was limited to those categories then wikipedia itself (being non published) would be a trivial source- which is blatant nonsense. If you wish to exclude all material that is only published online then you still have to deal with the large amount of paper artwork that has been created on this topic. To my knowledge wikipedia offers no guidence for notabilty of artwork, but the shear quantity and quality produced makes it non trivial. ANTIcarrot 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, this isn't a question of whether anyone likes the species, it's about whether or not chakats are notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia, which is what this is. - ∅ (∅), 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that ANTI's point is; because it is so well known, in a pool of dozens of other fictional species in the Furry Fandom, it is notable. Take the Sergal for example. It's pretty obscure in the fandom, where as, chakatas are not. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...no, seriously, read WP:N. NeoFreak 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • explane to me how Noonien Soong is a notable example of a character, when A) the only source it cites is Star Trek TNG, and B) a wiki on star trek which also cites the same episodes. Perhaps that article should also be deleted. Surely Noonien Soong isn't notable outside the Star Trek fandom, and it's only citing works of fiction from one source; I can't see where the news articles are, or other such secondary sources of information are. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To quote WP:BIO, which allows for articles about "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." In the following list of items to assert notability for an individual of this type is the requirement: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following." Note that this is acceptable because it is a character on a long-running, extremely popular television show - not self-published internet fiction. -- Antepenultimate 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a better place to check is WP:FICT, where Noonien Soong is actually used as an example of a minor character that deserves a separate entry, due to suficient depth. Please note the background of a successful television show as well; this really makes all the difference. If this Chakat race is really as important within furry fandom as claimed, it may be best for you to look for another article at Wikipedia that you could suggest merging a shorter, more concise version of this article into. This is a compromise that I may be able to support. -- Antepenultimate 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think Soong deserves his own page either but as I've said past violations are not precedent for this one. Besides if you think that the Chakat's "Stellar Federation" furry fan fiction universe is equatable to Star Trek then we alot bigger issues here. NeoFreak 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First, the Forest tales 16-18 have been published as a book, [[3]] Second, You can not say 'this page has to go' and cite a policy that basically says that such article are allowed. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Line two on the webpage: Creator Owned Publications Self published, doesn't count. Relevant Amazon hits for "Chakat": Zero. That covers a lot of territory, what with all the Amazon associate used and speciality booksellers. Also, while you're at it, read WP:INN. Tubezone 06:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a nice Error 404 you've linked us to, there. whoops, that was temporary. And I'm not going to explain the difference between a long-running television show and somebody's personal webpage again. Start citing reliable, third party sources as outlined in WP:RS if you really feel this article should stay. You should know that Star Trek fanfiction drek gets deleted all the time. You're right to say the fiction guidelines are somewhat loosely followed, and I agree it's gotten out of control. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting it to get worse. -- Antepenultimate 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are misreading Creator owned publications, I believe it refers to the fact that the writers still own the copyrights to the stories.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Worse still, Fauxpaw Publications seems to be a vanity press... MER-C 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a vanity press to me... they claim to pay the authors, not the other way around. Small press, certainly, but that's to be expected with a niche genre like this. I'm not convinced the book is enough to make this topic "notable," but given that it seems to be a web-based concept, it could be argued to meet criterion #3 of WP:WEB. Personally, I'd want to see sources. If they're that widespread in fandom, hasn't someone written up an essay about their culture, or something? Anybody reviewed all those stories? Anything? Shimeru 07:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally, it seems they pay the authors "in kind" (free copies of the book) or the royalty income, what there is of it, winds up going to pay artists, here's their submission guidelines. As far as I can tell, their only distributor is The Rabbit Valley Comic Shop, zero Amazon hits for Bernard Droove or Fauxpaw. Maybe not a vanity press per se, but should still be considered trivial for notability purposes, you'd practically have to publish in Sanskrit from a cave in Nepal to be much less notable. Tubezone 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Added link to independent review of the work to the article.ANTIcarrot 14:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A furry-fan e-zine (Anthro #6), trivial. Tubezone 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, this shows that it is notable in the furry fandom, and it has reviewed by another source. It's like claiming that a science-fiction fan magezine can not review Star trek and use the review as a citation for an article on star trek. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a forum for unsubstantiated opinion. 'Trivial' on what grounds? ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Trivial per WP:BK. Anthrozine is even less notable than Publisher's Weekly, and reviews by PW are beneath the notability threshhold. The Forest Tales books don't even have ISBN numbers, let alone LC catalog numbers. I mean, there's stuff that's been published on mimeograph that has an LC catalog number. Equating Forest Tales with Star Trek or Chakats with Noonien Soong for notability purposes is a an absurd non sequitur. Tubezone 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, at best, to Wikifur. SkierRMH,08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or slight merge. I've found myself involved with some of these furry AfDs lately (I'm going back to writing mycology taxa articles soon, I swear), not out of any remote personal interest in the concepts, but rather in the AfD process. At times, material that could meet our standards reaches AfD because the articles don't: they are poorly written, in a genre perceived as "crufty", and little effort is made to appropriately reference or verify the content (even by its supporters!). That said ... I cannot find multiple, independent, non-trivial sources here. There are no shortage of trivial mentions: art categories, furcode references, one-line references in FAQs. The term is well-attested in the print-medium fanzine South Fur Lands, but that is not independent of the creator; the self-published and ultra-minor press material likewise. It is discussed in the webzine Anthro (#6), but that's not enough to support an article. Nevertheless, the term seems to have some cultural currency. Perhaps it can be merged as a brief mention in another article, such as a mention infurry fandom that roleplaying charcters—on which a stubby section already exists—might include "anthropormorphic animals (such as rabbits, foxes, or wolves), mythological creatures (centaurs, dragons, and the like), or fan-created species (including the quadrupedal feline aliens called chakats)". Serpent's Choice 08:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) -- change in suggestion, see below
  • Delete Chakats already have an article in Wikifur. A mention in a list of fictional furry creatures with a link to Wikifur is enough. There's just a lack of non-trivial, outside of the walled garden of furry-fandom references to this. The ghits count is artificially inflated by "chakat" apparently being a word in Hindi, Malaysian, Japanese, Russian and Shawnee. The article smells like social astroturfing as well. Tubezone 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's already fleshed out over at WikiFur and isn't notable enough to keep over here. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per user Tubezone and BradBeattie. Also I can't help but think that the originator of the article was making up the article as he/she was going along in writing it. There a no verifiable citations/sources and one could just about add anything to it with no one the wiser. --Eqdoktor 11:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Aside from being inaccurate, your thinking is not a good basis for deletion. Citations can and are being added. ANTIcarrot 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The first line of the page you cite states the following: This story uses elements from the Internet role-playing environment FurryMUCK, however it is not intended to be a complete or accurate description of anything actually there. Furry fanfiction != reliable source. Tubezone 17:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a false argument. Pretty much every modern fantasy book on the book shelves contains elements from Lord of the Rings, but that does not make them fanfiction. All writing works that way for all genres. Furry simply tends to be a little more honest about it. The two (story) sources are relevant as they mark the turning point where the chakat setting stopped belonging to its creator and became 'open source'. Information to this effect exists on the chakats den. At that point fanfiction as a term no longer has any relevant meaning. (And point of note, specifying 'furry fanfiction' like that is not needed. Fanfiction is fanfiction. Specifying specific types can sound prejudicial and non-neutral.) ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This article was first written (2004) before wikipedia even had guidelines on fiction notability (2005). I'm not sure it's fair to suddenly demand it meets complex guidelines that did not exist at the time 'or else'. Give it another week or two (when people have found time for a major rewrite) and then have another look. ANTIcarrot 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think this is exactly the kind of article the notability guidelines are meant to address. I don't see any grandfather clause in the guidelines. I am not sure what you think you can come up with in a week or even a month, there isn't going to be a Publisher's Weekly review or an amazing change in the Amazon ranking of its books or author (actually, any Amazon ranking at all would be amazing). Tubezone 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's true that Chakat is not breaking any rules or policies other then being poorly writen. As I've pointed out, these are not very strong guidelines, Chakats are notable in the fury fandom, just as Nooien Soong is notable in the star trek fandom. If a Fictional engineer in a fictional universe can be an article, so can a fictional creature in a fictional universe. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If and when a Forest Tales' syndicated TV series comes out, I'm sure the issue of the notability of this character will be revisited for a WP article. Tubezone 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are dozens of articles on wikipedia about non-syndicated Television shows. I feel that you are attempting, on purpose, to misunderstand my example.
To paraphrase NeoFreak: The chakat article has no claim of notability, and does not hae any sources outside the creator's website.
Now, if you replace chakat with Noonien Soong; The Noonien Soong has no claim of notability, and does not have any sources outside of the creator's show.
However, if one reviews the WP:FICT one sees that Noonien Soong is an example of such an article which is allowed.HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, ENOUGH. Can that please be the last time the Noonien Soong or Star Trek is mentioned? They have nothing to do with Chakats. As has been said numerous times: inclusion is not an indicator of notability! Please stick to the subject at hand. This conversation is going in circles, and it is going nowhere, because I still don't see reliable, independent third party sources being added to this very-definition-of-fancruft article. I suspect this is because these sources simply do not exist. -- Antepenultimate 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
And another thing: Your argument that another article on Wikipedia is just as worthy of deletion as the one in question does absolutely nothing to further your position of Keep. -- Antepenultimate 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines are intend to address the style of such pages, not snuff them out of existence. The current page is inappropriately worded in many respects, but it is unreasonable to expect people to drop everything they are doing and instantly rewrite the article just to make you feel better. As mentioned above there are good reasons for the topic to be of interest for a group larger than the core readers.ANTIcarrot 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per everyone else who agrees that the Furries have their own wiki for this kind of thing. It's well-written, but it's well-written non-encyclopedic non-factual stuff of minority interest. Pete Fenelon 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. — Seadog 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, on account that (I think) this already exists on Wikifur. Transwiki if I'm wrong about that. --Dennisthe2 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - much as the character is popular in furry fandom, it's pretty well impossible to source under the guidelines here, and is probably better off at Wikifur. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While normally I'd vote to keep, the people who own the furry fandom and yiff articles (yes those have been WP:OWN for as long as they've existed), refuse to link to this article from their's. There's links from the talk pages of people arguing for the linking. It would be best transwikied to WikiFur, but if that's not possible, then Delete. Anomo 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment OK, I think I'm understanding the deeper issues here, (which really don't involve the notability of Chakats for WP), apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) the mainstream furry fans (the folks who like ordinary furry things such as The Lion King and Dogs Playing Poker) aren't too hip on hermaphroditic feline centaurs, whilst the more extreme furry-lifestylers and yiffy crowd don't see Chakats as overtly sexual enough, then apparently there's some personal issues between the "owners" of the articles as well. Thus all the protestations about the notability of Chakats in furry fandom, which really isn't pertinent to this AfD (the question here is solely whether the article meets WP guidelines). Anyway, the Chakat article on Wikifur is pretty much the same as the WP one, so the transwiki-ing is a done deal at this point. Tubezone 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Well I think alot of it has to do with the "owners" of this article being upset that their subculture isn't getting the same "recognition" as more mainstream ones. Like Star Trek I guess. This is only the tip of the wikipedia furryberg. Check it out. NeoFreak 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Liking The Lion King and Dogs Playing Poker doesn't count as furry fandom. That is normal fandom for modern culture. Loony Toons isn't necessarily furry fandom. Furry fandom is stuff like Inherit the Earth Quest for the Orb game or Taurin Fox's artwork. Anomo 09:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a point of contention and I would wager that most furries would disagree. Check out the Furry fandom article. I think that bringing the Lion King and Looney Toons "into the fold" is really an attempt to make the Furry community more mainstream or more encompassing than it really is but that's just a personal opinion, the argument can be made both ways. NeoFreak 09:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember when... alt.furry was a new Usenet newsgroup (yeah, I know, that's ancient history), most of the posts seemed to discuss The Lion King (in particular, that was popular) or similar Disney furries, that's why I mentioned TLK. Dogs Playing Poker was just a lame joke on my part. Haven't paid a lot of attention to furriness from then 'til now. Tubezone 09:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: you don't need to like the sexual elements of the fandom to be a "extreme furry lifestyler" :-p - ∅ (∅), 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Taur, aiming for a compromise. I just spent some time cleaning up and referencing the disaster that was the taur article, and collapsing about a zillion smaller articles into it. I included a brief mention of chakats (which probably do not meet full-article standards, but certainly can hold their own for an acknowledgement in a larger related section). Wikifur is the better place for the in-universe detail, barring notability-standards coverage of the concept at some future time. Serpent's Choice 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Kudos: Wow man. I was about to say that article was on my hit list too but you've done some great work to it. It's a million times better. I'm still not sure that the "Chakat" belongs there because that sets an example for anyone that creates a fictional creature or comic book/fan art to add their creation to wikipedia. Still a violation of the WP:NFT notability guideline even though it does not have its own article. I really think this sort of thing is best left to personal webpages and private wikis. NeoFreak 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks! It needed ... erm, help. I'm going to have to hit centaur soon, too, as it makes Chiron cry. But as for chakat and the WP:NFT issue... I'm torn. On one hand, as far as fictional creatures go, its certainly not centaur, or even drider. On the other hand, there are a ton of Google hits (conflated with some foreign language issues, admittedly). The material has seen publication in several fanzines (South Fur Lands, Fur Plus at least), and a serial-format (more or less) self-published book that got reviewed by webzine Anthro here. I don't think that's quite enough for an article, but I think its plenty to dodge the NFT bullet in regards to a mention within a larger topic. Serpent's Choice 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Changing my vote to redirect per Serpent'sChoice's excellent work on the Taur article. I don't know how happy the furry fanatics are going to be about cutting the article down to one sentence, but that one sentence wraps up about all that is encyclopedic about Chakats, IMO. Perhaps including external links to Wikifur and Doone's website (outside of the references) might not be such a bad idea. Again, nice work. -- Antepenultimate 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: here's one "furry fanatic" who could care less about chakats. - ∅ (∅), 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable fictional species. Edison 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I feel this article should be kept, as it is as notable as the unicorn and the pegasus. You don't have to be in the furry fandom to enjoy such things, either. SheWolff 18;36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — SheWolff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Question: Do you really think that the Chakat is as notable to popular culture as the Unicorn and Pegasus? Seriously? Do you have any refrences outside the furry internet community to back that claim? Has the Chakat ever been included in mainstream books, videogames, boardgames, movies, TV shows, coats-of-arms, or art like the Unicorn and Pegasus? No? I didn't think so. So what exactly is your comparative criteria for a statement like that? NeoFreak 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Probably WP:ILIKEIT ;-) I think this AfD is going to set some kind of WP record for non-sequiturs. Tubezone 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Chakat_a47d.html"