| Revision as of 23:55, 19 May 2008 editSticky Parkin (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,432 edits →WikiFur: speedy← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:39, 20 May 2008 edit undoKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits →WikiFur: speedy delete and saltNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *:This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? WP:CANVASS says that making neutrally worded notices on a WikiProject is the ''right'' thing to do. I have made no comments outside of Misplaced Pages, as this is a Misplaced Pages matter. ] (]) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | *:This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? WP:CANVASS says that making neutrally worded notices on a WikiProject is the ''right'' thing to do. I have made no comments outside of Misplaced Pages, as this is a Misplaced Pages matter. ] (]) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''speedy delete''' they are non-notable independently of ]. Wikifur have their own wiki where they can advertise or write about themselves. ] ] 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | *'''speedy delete''' they are non-notable independently of ]. Wikifur have their own wiki where they can advertise or write about themselves. ] ] 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy delete and salt''' as re-creation of a twice deleted article. ] (]) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:39, 20 May 2008
WikiFur
AfDs for this article:- WikiFur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This website appears to lack non-trivial coverage by independent third party publishers, failing WP:WEB and WP:N guidelines. It should also be noted that this article has been deleted twice as a result of two previous deletion debates, but has since been re-created despite the consensus of the community. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per the rationale provided in my nomination above. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Since the prior deletion we have been used as a reference (indeed, as their first reference, for the definition of furry fandom itself) by a published third-party peer-reviewed academic source (see Nast in the reflist). Four localization projects have also been started, though I appreciate this indicates popularity more than notability. GreenReaper (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. With a few minutes of searching I was able to locate two references to Wikifur, one in a Canadian newspaper , and one in a college newspaper . Both were more recent than the previous AfD. I can probably find others if I keep looking. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: Strongly oppose salting, even if the decision for now is to delete. References that may satisfy WP:WEB and WP:N are becoming more frequent, and even if it is decided that the ones currently present are not sufficient, that may well change in the future as additional references become available. It should not be assumed that because the article was found to be lacking notability in the past that that is still the case, or that it will continue to be the case in the future. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm actually in the progress of replying to a set of interview questions sent to me from a third-party (non-furry) website wishing to cover WikiFur (specifically) and the furry fandom. I'm not sure whether Misplaced Pages would consider that a reliable source, since I'm the source of replies, but it's something to keep in mind. GreenReaper (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum: Strongly oppose salting, even if the decision for now is to delete. References that may satisfy WP:WEB and WP:N are becoming more frequent, and even if it is decided that the ones currently present are not sufficient, that may well change in the future as additional references become available. It should not be assumed that because the article was found to be lacking notability in the past that that is still the case, or that it will continue to be the case in the future. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Consensus has already spoken on this subject twice. Keeping now would render the AfD processes and consensus policies meaningless. Xihr (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that consensus cannot change based on new evidence? The last AfD was held in 2006, and strongly contested even then. Both the substantive use as a reference and the two news articles given by mwalimu date from after that point. GreenReaper (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since I never said that, no, I'm not saying that. You simply haven't demonstrated anywhere near enough evidence that it is actually notable now -- and since it's gone through two AfDs were delete and twice the article was recreated against consensus. By the way, why are you !voting in an AfD for a site you founded? Xihr (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your wording implied that the sole reason for your decision was the prior consensus. If it was not, that's fine, but more clear wording would have been better. As for participating in this discussion, why not? My affiliation is quite clear on my user page. For what it's worth, I didn't think it should be kept the first time it was deleted - and I said as much - but I do now. This is an article with verifiable information on a website that has been noted by third parties as a reference within its topic area. GreenReaper (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since I never said that, no, I'm not saying that. You simply haven't demonstrated anywhere near enough evidence that it is actually notable now -- and since it's gone through two AfDs were delete and twice the article was recreated against consensus. By the way, why are you !voting in an AfD for a site you founded? Xihr (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that consensus cannot change based on new evidence? The last AfD was held in 2006, and strongly contested even then. Both the substantive use as a reference and the two news articles given by mwalimu date from after that point. GreenReaper (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per User:Mwalimu59's sources; seems to just barely meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)- Delete, may not be similar enough for a G4, but there's still no proof that it meets WP:RS (I misinterpreted a source). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete (G4). Consensus has deemed this website to be non-notable on two separate occasions. The article cited by Mwalimu59 makes no mention of WikiFur at all, not even a trivial one, other than a link to the site. External links != reliable sources. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: User:GreenReaper just mentioned the AfD on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Furry talk page. Votestacking or not, keep that in mind for the flood of keeps that's sure to follow. Xihr (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? WP:CANVASS says that making neutrally worded notices on a WikiProject is the right thing to do. I have made no comments outside of Misplaced Pages, as this is a Misplaced Pages matter. GreenReaper (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- speedy delete they are non-notable independently of furry. Wikifur have their own wiki where they can advertise or write about themselves. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a twice deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)