Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurFright

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 already Merged and redirected to Furry Convention (don't often get to say that). Yomangani^talk 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FurFright

No evidence of notability outside the furry subculture, and is a relatively minor convention within the subculture. Only around 500 attendees. BigE1977 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Kill and skin, er delete No notability. Best kept to the somewaht scary environment of the furry wiki Lurker ^oi! 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Skin? That's fursecution! Anomo 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a worthy encyclopedia candidate. LittleOldMe 18:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Edison 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes! My daily opportunity to use the word "furrycruft"! --- RockMFR 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it should be stub'd and more relevant information should be obtained and then re-voted Andrew4010 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is another article at WikiFur with much more information than a single sentence about a furry con. Noting that the deletion of other fur cons from last week also sets a precedent for the purpose. --Dennisthe2 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Given this situation appears to be cropping up with some regularity (unsurprising, since there are over 30 active furry conventions depending on how you count it, and more every year), would some kind of a Furry conventions summary article with redirects from these titles - as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest FurFest - be more acceptable? People clearly come to Wikipedia to find out about the conventions, so if Wikipedia isn't willing to cover the topics in depth because it feels there is not enough information that can be verified by those outside the fandom to make a good article, then perhaps an article which included the bare verifiable details for the lesser conventions and directed people to the convention's website and to WikiFur for more information would be appropriate? I hesitate to suggest this, because as the founder of WikiFur it would direct more traffic to a site I'm involved with, but it seems like people above are suggesting that people should be directed there rather than create articles here. While each furry convention has its quirks, they share many common features - it would not be hard to create a general overview of what a furry convention is, which would give value to the article beyond that of a simple list. GreenReaper 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Probably a good idea. Only larger cons tend to be noteworthy enough for encyclopedic purposes, but a more general article including (and not limited to) a list is typically more acceptable. You can be bold and merge the existing ones (or summaries, in the case of the few larger ones that would meet notability criteria) to such an article. No need to wait for them to be AfDed. Links from such an article to the conventions' websites would seem appropriate as well -- just be careful that the article doesn't read like advertising copy. Shimeru 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have a skeleton article setup. I'll flesh it out, get the summaries written, and post it after I catch a few hours sleep. GreenReaper 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It took a little longer to get summaries of them all down, and appropriate references, but I will be posting this tomorrow. This need not affect the progress of this AfD - I intend to redirect it once the article is up. GreenReaper 10:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's up. I'm redirecting the appropriate pages (including this article) right now. GreenReaper 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Changing vote to Merge and Redirect to a central article, per the commentary involving GreenReaper above. Great idea, if you ask me Green, you might want to take care of the redir's also. --Dennisthe2 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of a talk page convinced me not notable. Anomo 04:57, 26 November 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.