Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurAffinity

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. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FurAffinity

Furry website/gallery. Completely fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft, nn. The article itself admits the website hasn't even been able to stay up regularly. KleenupKrew 11:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yup. Proto||type 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Like many deletion-bait website articles, this reads mostly like a log of the mundanities of running a medium-sized website: server downtime, hack attempts, getting a new server, new users showing up, etc. All of this is trivial in an ancyclopedic sense and not interesting or helpful to anyone not already a member. If article is cleaned up into something less trivial, preferably including media coverage and such, I'd possibly change my vote. Alexa rank is 65,722, higher than most AFD'ed websites, but not high enough to be kept on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Merge with furry fandom. A major site - probably the most active one at this precise moment - within the fandom, but, unlike Yerf (qv), not likely to be of interest to anyone outside it. Tevildo 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote changed Tevildo 11:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:Starblind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GassyGuy 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google search shows nearly 75,000 hits. [1] Beno1000 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Not notable and article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. The article also does not cite any reliable sources. --Starionwolf 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is my choice (I nominated it). - Motor (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Wickning1 18:55, 14 June 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.