Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Affinity

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 delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fur Affinity

Fur Affinity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, entirely unsourced article about an un-notable website that only an obscure community knows about. SchmuckyTheCat 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edison 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --humblefool® 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete on the grounds that this is better suited to WikiFur. Schmucky, note that the furry community is notable enough to have an article here on Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Claims to be the most popular website of its type (and, contrary to nom, sources that claim). This is a claim of noteworthiness. Leaving aside the nature of Alexa rankings, the question then becomes whether its type of website is sufficiently noteworthy. I know nothing about "furry art," so I can't really say -- but given the young age of this article (less than a week old), I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. A few Internet searches (I know, I know...) seem to suggest that the website might be sufficiently notable, so I will consider the article a valid stub for now. Would reconsider if article is not at minimum sourced and preferably expanded within the next couple of weeks. Shimeru 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as substantially-identical recreation of a previously-deleted article. I hadn't been aware of the previous discussion. Shimeru 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An article covering this website was previously submitted for deletion under the title FurAffinity. The result of the discussion was delete.

Speaking as an expert in the field, I can confirm that the site is currently the most popular site for art in the furry fandom. The site will pass 300,000 submissions today, and has a daily input of around 1100 submissions. It has been reliably up for a significant period of time (finally), and has an Alexa ranking of ~23,000 over a three month period. It has separate forums (not notable, but active). The WikiFur article on Fur Affinity has a few further claims.

Having said that, you may feel that it is not an appropriate topic for an article, as there is really not that much that can be said about it that can be sourced with anything that resembles reliability. The closest we really have to an analysis apart from WikiFur would be stuff like this blog rant, and it is already outdated, not covering the recent "pedo cub art" debate (don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue). It is notable within the furry fandom, and should definitely remain as an external link there. You could talk about it in a discussion of art archives within the furry fandom. Other than that, I'm not sure. GreenReaper 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete basically because it's a recreation of a deleted article. I know I'll get accused of fursecution for this but really, by the name the nominator is a furry, too so I'm not fursecuting. It might be mergeable if someone mentioned where to. The furry fandom article gets rewritten daily so I don't know if that's a good place. Anomo 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fursecution! (they're not a member of Category:Furry Wikipedians :-) The article is rather volatile, but the links section appears relatively stable, except when trolls blank the whole article. GreenReaper 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as creator. The previous article was deleted because it was deemed fancruft and did not state noteworthiness. I have. Note that this article is not finished, as I'm still waiting for the admin of FA to get back to me on what he'd like to add to the article. Blast 11.30.06 1555 (UTC -5)

I have to wonder why you're asking him and not just adding what you think would improve the article. GreenReaper 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm a complete noob there, and I don't know anyone else on FA that would be willing to contribute. Blast 11.30.06 1825 (UTC -5)

If it was notable it wouldn't need a member to write an article. SchmuckyTheCat 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And who else would know enough about the site's workings to write about it? You can't exactly be a guest and be knowledgeable, you know (see $_any_art_site). Blast 12.02.06 2133 (UTC -5)

If that's the case, then it's probably not a notable site. Encyclopedias are generally derived from knowledge that is available to a reasonably large number of people. If a reasonably knowledgeable person familiar with the area could not research and write an article about a given topic, then generally speaking it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. While the site founder is entitled to contribute, it should not require their contribution. GreenReaper 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that it required the founder to contribute significantly, just anyone who visits the site often enough to figure out the community (therefore making them a de facto member, even if they don't have an account). One cannot write an article about a club without being even an initiate - or, one could, but the article would simply be a stub and remain a stub for its tenure on Wikipedia ; non-members, after all, are the only ones who can contribute, according to "popular opinion". I hope you see the problem with that interpretation of notability?

But then, since I seem the only one who's defending this article, perhaps I should simply let it go. Even if it is a notable site, surely someone else would be here on my side, were I right. And therefore, I cede this debate ; delete this article. Blast 12.03.06 1741 (UTC -5)

Let me make it clear that I don't think that deleting this article is necessarily the optimal solution, but it is in line with Wikipedia current policies and previous deletions. The site has not had media coverage, or much coverage at all outside of private blogs and journals (I did ask the founder and he said there had been a couple of inquiries which he had declined). There is therefore little that can be considered "proven" about it - and Wikipedia prefers to rely on reliable sources. As the site gets older and more popular, it may be that this situation will change. At that point, I suspect an article will be seen as more acceptable. GreenReaper 03:49, 4 December 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.