Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furry Tales

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 Keep — Caknuck 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furry Tales

Furry Tales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable, there is but one link to an actual newspaper covering the event, the only other refs are from furry-related news sources Zero sharp 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. One article is enough for Wikipedia's standards, and it's being featured on Wikipedia's front page, so apparently it's notable enough for that. This is obviously a non-neutral attempt to delete it because it's furry-related and not for notability. --Coyoty 05:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. WikiFur News is furry, but it's also independent from the creators of the musical, who were not furry. It seems reasonable that we'd be the ones most interested in reporting on it. The article was also syndicated onto Wikinews in modified form by one of their accredited reporters, who presumably decided it was worth noting - I only found out about it several days later. I have about five pages of notes taken during the show that were used in the creation of the news article if you wish me to back up the claims more thoroughly, though that might be more suited for Wikinews' side of things. GreenReaper 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. You can't build an encyclopaedia if you always take out things you don't like. From the sounds of it it seems the furry haters are after us again. They never seem to understand that they can't win do they? Robomilk 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Kill with fire. 202.67.83.97 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I saw the Wiki News articles on it and seems to cite various sources however I think most may be considered violation of WP:POV. Sawblade05 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article pretty obviously fails to meet the guidelines under WP:NOTABILITY. It hasn't received significant coverage in independent sources. And in any case, unless they're going on tour, it's a current event and belongs at best in wikinews. 76.88.98.88
• Keep As the user who help promote this article for "Did You Know?", I feel this article is notable within the context of the furry fandom. ISD 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Note that no qualified editors other than the nominator believe deletion is appropriate. --FOo 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article seems fairly well written and has two solid sources with plenty of information. It seems to me that this rfd is just a part of the vandalism going on with the article at the moment, rather than a serious request. Chaos386 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, this article is a DYK, very well-written and enough references. I doubt why up till now no admin closes it "speedy keep". @pple 09:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as bloated furcruft with no claim to notability, a whopping total of one media blurb, and a hell of a lot of OR. I agree with 76 up there. "Notable within context" is not appropriate for an entire encyclopedia, just as my grandma's bakery might be notable within the context of my town but not to a general audience. "One article is enough for Wikipedia's standards" is not correct, multiple reliable independent sources are desperately needed. Note to closing admin: "votes" clearly being stacked by "fursecution"-paranoid furry POV-pushers. WP:COI, anyone..? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, Wooty. –Ochlophobia

• Delete without prejudice as the article fails to establish notability per multiple, independent, reliable sources. Per Wooty above, one newspaper article is not enough to meet WP:RS. This is about a production that apparently hasn't been released yet - if it eventually gets wider coverage it can always be recreated. EyeSerene^TALK 12:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please show where WP:RS requires multiple sources. I only see a requirement for "a" source: "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material." I think the matter will be moot, however, as I expect other sources will be added. --Coyoty 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:N - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Corpx 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So Wikinews is not a reliable source independent of the subject? GreenReaper 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikinews is not a reliable source, no Wiki is a reliable source. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though the news article in question is archived and no longer editable by regular users? Being able to cite stories was a key part of setting up Wikinews. GreenReaper 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, almost every wiki is a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with no editorial oversight, so it is not a reliable source Corpx 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be furry, which seems to be targeted by a wide crowd here at Wikipedia, but it was made by non-furry directors. SpazKitty 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There's far too much WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. It has sources; if one wasn't enough here's another one. Crystallina 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Men's News Daily article is a reprint of the WikiFur article. --Coyoty 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, that one is the complete Anthrocon coverage article that was posted solely on Wikinews. It was written significantly by furry fans, but as far as I am aware nobody involved in writing it was involved with Furry Tales (other than actually going there and reporting on it). GreenReaper 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep, possible WP:POINT nomination. Article was good enough for a WP:DYK. Passes WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Just a comment from me (I'm watching the discussion at this point and haven't formulated an opinion on the article as yet): There's nothing to indicate the nominator, who's been around for a year or more and worked on a wide range of topics, was being disruptive with this nom - everyone needs to assume good faith here, please (and that goes for Wooty, above, as well). Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is true. The nominator's contributions show no bias against furry articles. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. --Coyoty 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for a lack of substantial coverage to demonstrate notability. Popularity among the furry fandom does not equate to real-world notability, and a single mention in a local paper does not establish it either - in fact the one article that does qualify as a reliable source indicates that this is largely of interest in connection with Anthrocon. Perhaps it can be merged somewhere, but without sources to establish notability it should not have its own article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Meets all requirements, and is the first of two (that I know of) musicals/plays about furry fandom to be mentioned in the news. –Ochlophobia

  "A page may be speedily kept only if one or more of the following holds:

1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.
2. The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption
3. The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit.
4. The page is a policy or guideline."

This nom meets none of the four criteria and therefore speedy keep is not applicable. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and change my choice to Strong Keep as the article still meets all sourcing requirements. –Ochlophobia

• Comment There is no agenda here. This is a debate about WP policy to establish notability, which a single source cannot do (regardless of how reliable or independent it is). Lack of sourcing seems to be becoming more and more of an issue on WP - which can only be a good thing for the credibility of the encyclopedia. I would regard this as even more important when the source is a newspaper, because it acts to keep down the number of trivial articles that, due to coverage in the local paper, might otherwise be created. Having said that, I'm not claiming that Furry Tales counts as trivia... just that, until additional WP:RS sources turn up, it is not notable enough to have an article to itself. EyeSerene^TALK 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Anthrocon and redirect for now. This was apparently the "beta" version of the play, presented during this year's convention if I read the article right, and at present it's only received very minimal media coverage - I'm not totally convinced that it meets notability as a standalone article right now, but as a section of the Anthrocon article, I think it'd be fine. When it's completed and has been performed in some way other than a preview, and hopefully gets some more media buzz going, then a standalone article would probably be acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (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.