Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furry lifestyler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge/redirect to Furry fandom. --Ezeu 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furry lifestyler

Please read this carefully. At first glance, this seems valid, but I assure you the topic matter of furries and furry fans is not my motivation for this nomination. I have a few, please react to these arguments in your votes:

1.Unverifiable-- (Wikipedia policy requires all articles be verifiable) Furries are very verifiable and notable, and they have their own description at several wikipedia pages, such as Furry fandom and others. I argue that any information on the term furry lifestyler is unverifiable: Zero hits on LexisNexis and Google News (news search engines with archives of two years) for "furry lifestyler" Zero hits on Jstor search

Now, there is a cited "source" that I could go into the rules about using self published articles, but it turns out I don't need to, because this essay on furry fandom does not use the term "furry lifestyle" or "furry lifestyler" once. How can it be a source for an article on the term if it doesn't use the term once?

I have called for and argued for verifiable sources on this page since this January.

2.Original Research- (Wikipedia policy requires that pages not be original research) No original research states "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Since are no sources, I don't think I need to argue this point too much. There is the self published essay, but it isn't "adhered to" since it's info is used to define a term it doesn't ever use, "furry lifestyler" or even "lifestyle." Use of published primary sources is okay, use of unpublished primary sources, forums or newsgroups before a reputable news agency has made light of them, is against policy. People who call themselves furry lifestylers have edited this page, however"policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable." And I believe I have established that this article is unverifiable.

3.Non-notable(which I know is a suggestion, not a policy for deletion)-- 366 hits on google for "furry lifestyler" in quotes. This page is, on close inspection, an attempt to describe and define posters to the furry lifestyler newsgroup. People on the talk page have described it as a sort of "everything else" newsgroup where furry fans did not discuss furry art, but other things. I can only speculate, since I have found no documentation or reliable definition of furry lifestylers. Whether or not it is a clearly defined term in real life that could have a coherent and true article written about it is questionable, but somewhat irrelevant since I believe I have proven such an article would be in violation of wikipedia policy on several points.Articles such as this are welcome at places like wikiinfo, but are put here because of the trust and popularity of wikipedia, which is of course based in the policies that are against this article. Lotusduck 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, 7620 Ghits.--Jusjih 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • From a glance at Furry fandom (which in itself is a completely justifiable article), it seems to me that there are too many separate and disparate furry-related articles as it is. I don't think furries are a wide enough phenomenon (outside of a very particular subculture) to justify so many articles. This article seems to tell us little that the Furry fandom article doesn't, with the added point that the phrase "furry lifestyler" itself doesn't, based on a Google search, appear to be in particularly popular use (and according to the article it's just a synonym for the far simpler, far more widely-used "furry"). Ergo, I can't see a reason for this particular article to exist, and would suggest merging any original and useful content (if there is any) into Furry fandom. I wouldn't even suggest a redirect, though, since the phrase just doesn't seem common enough. Seb Patrick 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Question is not a merge without a redirect a delete? If it isn't a redirect, it will either remain as it is or be deleted. It appears that all of the content is original research and unverifiable, so I am pressed to question what could be merged.Lotusduck 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems to me that there's a fairly distinct difference between the fan covered in Furry fandom, who are those with an appreciation for furry (art, comics, etc) and the lifestylers covered in this article, who make furry into an everyday belief system and in some cases modify their bodies, etc. I feel that they're distinctive enough not to merge the two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any comment as to the wikipedia policy violations I have outlined?Lotusduck 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. What would you like me to comment on? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this is not a merge proposal, and that is how your justification is formatted. Lotusduck 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be a good idea if it were possible. The content from furry lifestyler would be removed as unverifiable according to policy, would it not? You could try adding the extra content about totemistic beliefs etcetera to Furry fandom and see if I'm wrong. Lotusduck 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. There certainly are people calling themselves "furry lifestylers", everyone who's involved in the furry fandom can tell you that. I'm not sure if this is notable enough to warrant its own article, but it should be mentioned somewhere in furry fandom. Actually, you can't really verify most of what is in there, too. Unless you want to trust MTV and Vanity Fair. --Conti|✉ 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This page is not the place for suggesting that wiki articles do not need verification. You can argue that at the policy page for verifiability. MTV is published, and usually reprints stuff from USA Today anyhow. Sources where furry fandom is relevant, like at E3 talk about it all the time. Lotusduck 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Our articles need verification of course, but you'd had lots to do if you would nominate everything for deletion that has not been in a pubilshed source yet. I'm just not sure if that's the right way. --Conti|✉ 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy says it's the right way to go. If you don't like wikipedia policies you don't have to contribute here. "Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace" and one of those policies is verifiability. Also, your chronology is off, a page should not be created and wait until it has been in a published source that can back up that content. That's after the fact justified original research. Another "not" entry, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not meant to put up what we do not know is verifiable because we think some newspaper will back up our content or should, at some point in the future. So help me out here: What's your justification for a merge or keep? Lotusduck 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between mentioning something and having an article about something. And to be honest, I don't feel like removing everything that has no reference from any article I encounter. As per WP:V, I'm allowed to do just that. But there's also a thing called common sense (no references, by the way), I like to listen to that from time to time, too. --Conti|✉ 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - valid subset of furry fandom, and merging might start a lengthy discussion that could get messy. Fact is, "furry" gets lumped together so badly by major media that it's not surprising there are no distinct references to furry lifestyle. Here's some other links: [1] as an alternate source of information that does use 'furry lifestyle'. [2] refers to the 'furry' lifestyle in the title. How'bout a ref from entirely outside of the fandom citing the research mentioned in the article (Absolute Astronomy?! Huh.): [3] And [4], which mentions the furry lifestyle, as another. (I'd add them into the article, but it looks like it's got a team of editors shaping it - all yours, folks.) Tony Fox 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Your citation from outside of fandom is a copy of an older version of this wikipedia article, as it says on the bottom. The rest are self published. Please read wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, and perhaps reconsider your judgement. Lotusduck 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to furry fandom, or even keep. (Disclaimer: I probably fit to the vague description of a "furry lifestyler", but since it's impossible to prove conclusively that I exist, please try to avoid the ontological quandry.) Let's shoot this interesting deletion motion down, shall we? 1) Unverifiability: The nom's argument hinges on news media's mentions. Contrary to that, there's actually people calling themselves "furry lifestylers". Yet, you don't hear the news organisations calling them that. It's almost like if RMS said something in public and the news media said "Yesterday, a famous open source evangelist opened his mouth again. There were no survivors." (emphasis mine.) I'd contest this is a highly "technical" term that the news media is simply not interested about. Look for "furry fans who believe they have some connection to the animals" and you may be start finding something.
    2) OR/Sources: I admit full well this is on much shakier ground. The article does cite the origin of the term (namely, discussions in Usenet) and the existence of an actual Usenet discussion group alt.lifestyle.furry. If you dig through the Google Groups archives, you'll probably found wealth of information on the particular culture - when I followed the group, they had FAQs posted periodically (actual copy of the FAQ), and had frequent user surveys. Some actual research to this phenomenon or media mentions would be extremely sweet, that I agree. But I'd like to say what verifiability policy said last I checked: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. We don't need extraordinary proof to establish the existence and even extent of furry lifestylers. Details may be a bit more different.
    3) Notability: I really wonder if Google is broken with these searches, I remember the lifestyler activity being fairly active =) I concur this may be a little bit of a fringey stuff to be mentioned in an article of its own, but it is a notable phenomenon within furry fandom. Thus, I'd be cool to have a merge at least; and hey, there's always WikiFur for this kind of stuff. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lack of Google News or LexisNexis articles does not mean a lack of significance, and I think the argument for deletion is artificially downplaying the significance. Wikipedia's benchmark for significance is Google, not Google News. A Google search on "furry lifestyler" brings up "about 8,390" hits (369 for exact phrase), and "furry lifestyle" has "about 619,000" (604 for exact phrase). So much for notability. Among them I have found citations that can be incorporated into the article (and I'll do so when I get the chance), such as [5] and [6] (which explains the difference between furry lifestylers and furry fandom). It appears to me that there's not so much a lack of citations as that no one got around to finding them or has been motivated to. You're not going to find them merely in Google News because it doesn't keep articles around indefinitely. You shouldn't base deletion proposals on looking only where the light is better. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Self published articles do not qualify as sources. Moreover, some of the links that y'all provided don't use the term furry lifestyler. The reason why furry lifestyle without quotes gets so many hits is because every day of the week a lifestyle column in a paper prints a story about "our furry friends the squirrels" or similar. Calling furry fandom a lifestyle is not evidence for the usage of the neologism "furry lifestyler". None of you have provided any suggestion that the article is not unverifiable through reputable sources, as I have said. Lotusduck 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A Cleveland television news channel report is self-published? A Tennessee newspaper article is self-published? That's what those links are to, mainstream news articles. Either you didn't bother to read their provenance, or you are lying about accepting good citations. "The Tennessean" specifically uses the term "lifestyler", but you are trying to claim the articles don't say anything about them. "There is a distinction, they say, between the people who enjoy the costuming aspects of the culture and lifestylers, who incorporate their animals into their lives in a more spiritual way." I don't know how much clearer that can be. Or the Cleveland News 5 article title, "Group Celebrates 'Furry' Lifestyle". You are setting extraordinary criteria in order to dismiss the citations you asked for and probably did not expect to get. Despite your gymnastic denial that it's the furry lifestyle itself you're challenging, your resistance indicates otherwise. "The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." (Ralph Waldo Emerson) Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So you feel that any source that does not use the word "furry lifestyler" directly next to one another, despite that last one in the Tennessean referring to "lifestyler" in the context of discussing "furry," as well as other similar references, is unqualified to be considered in this discussion? My apologies, but you're doing a very fine job of splitting hairs here. Editors have presented a large number of new references, including to mass media outlets, that quite obviously refer to the furry lifestyle. I'm certain the administrator who looks over this discussion when time comes to close it will consider those favourably. Tony Fox 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The article nominated for deletion is not furry as a lifestyle choice(as is the article you mention), but the neologism "furry lifestyler" and some spurious definitions and qualifications on it. The article does not, as you say, refer to "lifestyler" but lifestyles. An article on womens' lifestyles would not justify a wikipedia entry on the term "Woman lifestyler." It happens to have some of the same words, or similar words to the article furry lifestyler, but does not validate any information therein. Your "large number of sources" is only that one article, and many self published websites, which are not allowed as sources as a matter of policy. See WP:V. But the article has not been deleted yet. If the claims in the article can be sourced, go to the article and source them. If there are mass media sources that differentiate a furry lifestyler from a furry fan, as the article purports, I'd like to see them. Lotusduck 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the Tennesean, on their webspace, the article mentioned does not currently exist, nor do any of the links included. There's no date on it, either.Lotusduck
The article is about furry as a lifestyle choice! This is going beyond desperation, IMO. This is the point in the court drama where the plaintiff totally loses it and judge declares he's seen enough. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article is about defining "furry lifestylers" as 25 different things, fans or fursuiters or people that don't want to be called fans or fursuiters. I'm hard pressed to think that the article is definitively, or clearly about anything at all. Nice personal attack on me though.Lotusduck 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between furry fandom and furry lifestyler? DyslexicEditor 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's analogous to the difference between Trek fandom and devoting one's life to Vulcan or Klingon philosphy and traditions. Or better yet, lifestylers are the furry equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. Those examples are inexact, though, as a lifestyler may point out. It's more of a zen thing. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That still blurs the line, too. I don't think there's a trekkie lifestyler article, but I didn't try every possible spelling. DyslexicEditor 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Make Article Redirect to Furry Fandom and Move Content. Then revamp furry articles for verifiability and published sources - I thought furry lifestyler and furry fandom or at least one were up for deletion upon a time and I know there's been merger votes. I don't remember the results. Anyway, furry lifestyler and fandom seem about the same thing and the fandom has a lot of different types of furries--nobody can agree on which is which and there's tons of debates on it, such as sexual aspects are always a big debate. For my revamp thing, there's a good trend on controversial wikipedia articles for every bit of info has to have verifiable sources that can be found to state what the info is. Furry articles are full of debate about what is what and all info needs reliable sources (wikipedia says something like news media and puplished academic research? Well that sort of thing). Most of the sources are "in my experience, furries are like this and there's not like this." I personally think Wikifur does a much better job than the furry articles here because it is more inclusive. So basically I can't grasp a clear difference between fandom and lifestyler so I say merge, and furry articles are controversial so they need everything there supported by sources that meet wikipedia's standards for sources and not personal experience like the article is now. DyslexicEditor 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just revamped the article substantially. Please give that your consideration. Thanks. Tony Fox 00:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Neologism originating from a late 1990s Usenet newsgroup fork, not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Has some references. --JJay 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Toward the end of the archived article linked at the foot of this article, we read Sitting together around the table at the cafe, the furs say the one thing they want to convey to non-furs is that they're really no different than anyone else who is part of a group or has a special interest or hobby. Is this true? If it's true, should there be an article for every group and for the practitioners of every hobby? (Today I used an old Konica camera; should there be Users of old Konica cameras? [I'd say no of course not: I see no reason why use of an old Konica camera is encyclopedic or indeed even of interest to anybody else.]) -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely true; the furry fandom is considerably more extensive a "hobby" than - for example - stamp collecting is. (A philatelist is unlikely to routinely dress up as their favorite stamp, for example.) In any case, the group is large and well-defined enough that it merits an encyclopedic treatment. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Another question: if these people are so different from furry fans as to require their own article, how come the same photo appears in both articles? -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Convenience, most likely. I recently ran into a bunch of articles (Sabot, Kinetic energy penetrator, and Sub-caliber round), all of which used the same image (Obus_501556_fh000022.jpg) in their opening. That particular image just happens to be readily available. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Third question: no doubt this is all of tremendous interest to the participants, but is it of more than the slightest interest to anybody else? I read that the former have their own "WikiFur"; can't they just write it all up there? -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiFur is indeed designed for the cataloguing of furry-related topics which wouldn't be of particular interest to the general public. However, a general description of the furry fandom is definitely within the scope of Wikipedia. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiFur is a last recourse for furry articles that would otherwise be deleted (though in this case we have our own already, so it would be merged). However, its existance should not be an excuse to go around deleting such articles, otherwise we are likely to become Wikipedia's furry dumping ground, where everything gets sent because "there is a place for it now, and it's not here". Please decide whether or not to delete this article based on its merits, then if you decide to we may have a use for the content before you actually do so.
Speaking more generally, Wikipedia has around 40 articles in Category:Furry, while WikiFur has close to 4000. I don't see Wikipedia's current level of detail as unreasonable for items related to a fandom that has over 20 years of history behind it and fields three annual conventions with over 1000 attendees. Just because this has gone largely unnoticed by most "reputable sources" doesn't make it irrelevant to Wikipedia's readers. GreenReaper 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Make that three really big (1000+ attendee) annual conventions, with a lot of smaller ones (Conifur, Feral, Califur, Oklacon, FurFright...) Zetawoof(ζ) 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fourth question: if there is anything to this beyond the statistically unusual but non-pathological pleasure of dressing up in animal suits (without being paid by Disney, etc.), isn't this covered in otherkin? -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No - very much no. The distinction is pretty obscure, but can be summarized thus: The otherkin community is more or less defined by a belief that one existed as some form of mythological creature in a previous life. The furry community is a bit more fuzzily defined, but can be generally lumped together as people who identify with animals to some degree or another. There's significant crossover between the two groups, but they are emphatically not identical. A person who believes they are the second coming of Dracula is probably not a furry, and a person who likes to draw anthropomorphic foxes isn't necessarily an otherkin. That all being said, though, I still find the distinction between the furry fandom as a whole and the concept of the furry lifestyler unnecessarily narrow; as such, my vote to merge stands. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per excellent nom. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, did you actually read any of the discourse above, where several of us have basically knocked off the 'verifiability' concerns expressed by the nominator, including a complete rebuild of the article? Tony Fox 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well first off not that i give a flying duck about furry stuff (I say this now to stop the stipid question of why am i here, i am at work and bord)the thing and wants to does cover things that are very different from the other articles. I dont believe the common furry has the whole spiritual and body mod thing going on, granted this is lacking in quantity of information, its simply a topic that realy does not have a lot of reaserch done on it. so lets say someone wants to learn about the whole furry lifestyler thing, its got enoff difference that it should be its own thing otherwise that person is going to have to sift through all the regular furry stuff just to find the info they need. i say keep it and work on improving the quality and quantity of info. also just because SOMEONE does not like the idea of this lifesyle does not mean it should be deleted. i bet you just dont want to incurr the wrath or any other alternitive lifestyles so you pick on an obscure one.-me-06/04/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.18.128.13 (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge per Zetawoof (and thanks to Zetawoof for patient replies). -- Hoary 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with furry fandom. The subject can be covered there and does not justify its own article. - Motor (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of furry lifestyler stuff in the fandom article already. Like deep spirituality, sexuality, drawing sexual furry art, dressing in the fursuits. DyslexicEditor 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
... apparently I missed the bits about how lifestylers draw sexual furry art and dress in fursuits in the actual lifestyler article. Misconceptions! Yay! Tony Fox 15:15, 7 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.