Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VCL (Vixen Controlled Library) (2nd Nomination)

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library)

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was keep.

2nd nomination. Unsourced. Non-notable to anyone but an obscure sexual fetish group. No movement to source a single thing on this article since the first nomination. SchmuckyTheCat 08:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six months is plenty long enough to find sources. Fails WP:V. QuagmireDog 09:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, although I don't think it's necessarily a sexual fetish. JIP | Talk 10:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unvrifiable, agree with nom. Ter e nc e Ong 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would've thought most anything with over 10 years of continual online operation would have some reliable mention, somewhere. Under either name, I appear to have been wrong. Serpent's Choice 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Trim, Shave, Wax it, take your pick) What the hell? Where are all these "furry"-related articles coming from? This has been around since 2003 and there's no source for the claims yet. Wavy G 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete furrycruft. Anomo 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Calling it "furrycruft" isn't really a convincing argument as it doesn't really address any issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Xydexx 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or chainsaw merge. The reason I'm now grudgingly saying this should go is basically the same reason I gave for Yiffstar's deletion. I'm standing by my position from the previous AfD that the site is widely known. However, I feel that an external link, possibly a very brief discussion, in an appropriate article is all that is really needed. Non-furries aren't likely to find the history of the site fascinating enough, and furries are probably there just to look at the pretty pictures. We have WikiFur for this sort of stuff. And ~~Carthago must be deleted~~ I hate verifiability as the only deletion argument, no matter how you phrase it it comes across as a cop-out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly enjoy just using 'V' as an argument either, AFD discussions should be more than that. However, when trying to hold the balanced view (IE holding up WP's rules against its own bedrock of being about providing information and discussing that comparison in AFD), this is often used as leverage to keep articles which do not belong. It shouldn't be, but it is, making it more difficult to hold balanced discussions when they are indeed necessary, more's the pity. I quite agree with you that VCL is an important website within the furry community, but that there's no material out there to make an article from. What is there to say about this site? "It's full of furry pics - if you want furry pics go there." That's it, in a nutshell. The way to provide that is as an external link from the main furre article or by providing a link to WikiFur which will doubtless have an article. I would have liked to have summarised all that in my 'vote', but I grow tired of some contributors insisting the grass is blue and the sky is green, just to keep articles which are clearly not suitable for WP. QuagmireDog 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCL is already an external link on the Furry fandom article, as is WikiFur which in turn has an article on VCL. QuagmireDog 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.