Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Further Confusion

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 04:35Z

[edit] Further Confusion

Further Confusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Totally not notable. A conference/convention with 1900 participants? That happens every weekend in several major hotels in any major city. Also, unsourced except an external link to it's own advertising page. Anything worth salvaging from this article is probably already in the parent article for the category. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Quite notable within the genre - the second largest of its kind, in fact, second only to Anthrocon. Compare BayCon, a "large" science fiction convention at "two thousand attendees", for example. I can't find any reliable statistics for Philcon - one of the oldest SF conventions, having been established in the 1930s (!) - but one source says it was somewhere around 800-1200 in 2003. I don't know what you're comparing against, but whatever it is, it's probably an excessive standard. (Sourcing is a separate issue which can be handled without AfD.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and clean up. This con has had a bit of press here and there, so head count here isn't the qualifier. Zetawoof also raises good points there. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is not up to standards, but that's not what AFD is for. Significant, long-running genre conventions are typically considered to meet WP standards. This particular convention in San Jose, California at least got a mention in an article from the Orlando Weekly[1] (which does, for the curious, have print-media distribution [2]) There's probably more out there. Serpent's Choice 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If news coverage is what you're after, there was a front-page article in the San Jose Mercury News as well. It no longer appears to be in their archives archives; however, the title was "Furry Friends Flock Together" and the date of publication was in mid-January 2005, during the convention. A copy was posted to Usenet and can be viewed here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can anyone tell me why Google News and Factiva find nothing for "Further Confusion" +convention or Furcon? What search terms find the reliable sources for this? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because you were searching the current Google News, and not the archives? "Further Confusion" furry, "Further Confusion" convention GreenReaper 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's worth keeping in mind that the convention doesn't go looking for news coverage - unlike most professional conventions, media representatives are not generally welcome. (Attendees were highly incensed about the 2005 article, which they viewed as an intrusion.) The fact that it's been covered at all says something. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable, even though not currently verified. "Needs cleanup" is not a reason for deletion. Shimeru 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Improve. Notable as second largest furry convention in existence. Sci-fi conventions with less attendance have articles, so there's no reason to single this out just because it's a furry convention. At least three news articles exist that reference it. Recommend adding additional information and improving the article. —Xydexx 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the largest and longest-running conventions in furry fandom. Are you also proposing deleting all of the other conventions in the SF/F/Comics/Anime/Related genre, such as BayCon, which until last year was in the same hotel and was only a bit larger than FurCon? Kevin Standlee 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep In looking over other convention entries, I see no reason this article should be deleted. It should be fleshed out and filled in with more complete information and since I am on the Board for the organization, I have put the wheels in motion to have that happen as well. David Cooksey
• Keep Its certainly more relevant and notable then Qi_of_Xia, Shadowrun_timeline or Community_Consolidated_School_District_54, the question I always ask myself when writing an article is "Will someone want to read this in 10 years?" and although the Further Confusion Article is of dubious quality, its still something someone might wanna look up in 10 years.--Alohawolf 09:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. While a generic con of 2,000 people has arguable notability this one is notable because of its nature. People and the meida are quite interested in the "furry lifestyle" and this is the second largest gathering of those folks. I'd say this is worth mention but I was thinking of merging this, along with the other furcon artilces, into the Furry convention article because they are only notable within the context of the furry lifestyle and most of these articles (this one included) don't have enough independant sourcing and content to really make quality articles. NeoFreak 18:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A quick [search] shows that Further Confusion has been written up the Sunday Telegraph of Australia, Fox News, Oakland Tribune, and San Jose Mercury News. It has been the subject of an NPR interview (sadly, no longer on the Web), and even a rant by Rush Limbaugh (available on request.) It's significant. Chip Unicorn 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chip, I actually have the NPR/PRI interview archived on my website: [click here]. I don't know the details of the date it aired, however. Found it. —Xydexx 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the cites, Xydexx. --Dennisthe2 00:08, 24 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.