Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlanetFurry

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 of the debate was Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetFurry

Good god.....get it out of here. Ok, to start: it's an article about a website for "furry"s, and a non-notable forum. Does not appear to meet any WP:WEB notability tests. Also contains a huge linkspam list at the end. Kill it in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Go forth and delete. James Kendall [talk] 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

- No way! Why delete it? Because its furry? What if it was a site for black people

• Then it would be a non-notable site about black people, and ripe for AfD. Delete. RGTraynor 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I differ. While the website may not be as notable as other web forums on Wikipedia, and for the mainstream could be considered "non-notable" for the mainstream, the PlanetFurry website and community *Are notable* within the furry fandom. There are several fairly high-profile furry stories stemming from the PlanetFurry community.

And the problem is, while the furry community as a whole is notable (barely), and this site is notable (maybe: Alexa says otherwise) within the furry community, this site is NOT notable within the world community which, unfortunately for the article, is what matters here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And as to User:Swatjester, I would like to respond to this statement;

"get it out of here. Ok, to start: it's an article about a website for "furry"s,"

Ok, so you have something against the furry fandom? Isn't this blatantly against Wikipedia's neutral policy? Beno1000 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB, Alexa rank 1,036,357. Sandstein 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Beno My personal feelings against Furry's aside, what notability is there? It's a non-notable website. I wouldn't delete the Furry article: despite my contempt for the subject, it's highly notable. Same thing if there are (I haven't checked) entries for whatever the keynote Con for furry life is. Nobody's singling out furries here: we're singling out this site for not being encyclopedia worthy.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Swatjester Yes, the furry article should not be deleted, it is highly notable, and PlanetFurry itself can be classified as being notable within the fandom. And I would also like to note that you have admitted that you have "contempt for the subject" in regards to the furry fandom, and although you claim otherwise it still demonstrates bias on the subject.

Except, the furry article is not up for deletion. An article about an non-notable website filled with linkspam is. The website here isn't even notable within any genre: an Alexa ranking of over a million demonstrates it's not notable within even that genre. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If needs be I will remove the linkspam. And when you consider that works which are quite well known within the fandom such as "Sabrina Online the Story" are coming out of PF you can consider it "relavent within its genre". Beno1000 19:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina Online is notable (at least enough to merit an article). Fanfiction based on that is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB criteria... and Swatjester, try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL when nominating articles. Citing reasons for deletion is sufficent.--Isotope23 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think anything was uncivil. The "kill it in the face" part was a joke I include in any AfD I think appears a shoe-in. The comments are not meant as a criticism of the subject, but rather the content of the article's non-notability in the article. Point taken though, not everyone may get the joke, I'll rein it in a little, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You continually reference how it's "well known", and "notable" within the genre. Two problems: a) There's no attempt to assert HOW it's notable. Has the website been on tv? Has the website won international awards? Was it presented as a sponsor of FurCon? Does it have the requisite amount of users listed in WP:WEB? Does it have over 10,000 forum members? Has it made Wired magazine, or any of the major (and by major I mean top 500) internet blogs? No. It has an abysmal alexa ranking over 1 million. I'm sorry, but it's just not notable. WP:WEB quite plainly sets forth the standards for online notability. Relevancy within it's own genre is not important if the genre itself barely merits an article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No commentary about the forum's users or the quality of the site, just not notable per WP:WEB. --InShaneee 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Swatjester: The furry fandom warrants more than one article, and has several categories dedicated to it on Wikipedia. Beno1000 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was not referring to it numerically, or literally. I was referring rhetorically. The precise number of articles that furry fandom warrants does not matter in the slightest here: what matters is whether this website meets the WP:WEB notability standards. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• You mentioned that it should have 10,000 forum members. I can think of at least 2 other forums with articles on Wikipedia which have neither 10,000 members or meet any of the other criteria you mentioned in one of your previous posts. However, it is not debated whether these forums should have articles or not.

That makes them no better. If they don't meet WP:WEB, or have some extraordinary measure of notability they should be AfD'd too. As for below, regarding Alexa, I did not ever claim it was an end-all be-all. However, it's USUALLY right, and in this case the overwhelming weight of evidence points towards this site not being notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test. "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking." Beno1000 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, this website is not important or encyclopaedic. While the furry page will stay, this page will not. It does not have a high number of visitors and it is not notable. James Kendall [talk] 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an idea might be to shorten the PlanetFurry article to just cover the general overveiw of what the site is about. Then add links on the main Furry article that leads to all the Furry forum articles who should all be short basic descriptions with a link to the actual site. So that way a person wondering about the Furry fandom could read that article then click on the links to lead them to articles with info on some forums then if the description of the forum sounds good they can click on the link to lead them to the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.160.247 (talk • contribs).

Not required. The site is not notable. More notable sites are much more useful for illustrative purposes. James Kendall [talk] 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability and doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. --Alan Au 22:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiFur if it would otherwise be deleted. We are interested in such articles, even if Wikipedia is not. GreenReaper 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. GreenReaper 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per several good arguments above. Just zis Guy you know? 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to above notability concerns (and I'm not biased against furries). It might be notable within the furry community, but that's what WikiFur is for, so transwiki it there (though I can't vote transwiki, it's not run by Wikimedia). Although I now notice that's been done. -- Mithent 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. --Khoikhoi 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being already WIKIFUR'D!!!1! and not notable enough for WP (If we don't have an article for FurNation, a much larger, long-standing and more significant site, this definitely isn't going to fly either). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. Keep killing appropriate articles until they die from it Swatjester MLA 09:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn furrycruft. NTK 09:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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.