Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur (3rd 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. Singularity 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete and salt per the rationale provided in my nomination above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep Redirect to Furry fandom. With a few minutes of searching I was able to locate two references to Wikifur, one in a Canadian newspaper [1], and one in a college newspaper [2]. 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)[reply]

On further reflection, the references to date are not really sufficient to qualify for notability at this time. There is still a definite possibility the website may become notable enough to qualify within the foreseeable future, and with a redirect in place, good faith attempts to recreate the article by persons not familiar with it's history could be more easily dealt with (and I don't think anyone involved in this discussion is going to try recreating it before it has substantially better references and notability). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  And salt. The others are right; that this article keeps popping up despite consensus suggests strongly that it should be put to bed. Xihr (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Weak keep per User:Mwalimu59's sources; seems to just barely meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: User:GreenReaper just mentioned the AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry talk page.[3] 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)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia, as this is a Wikipedia matter. GreenReaper (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a twice deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the same article as the one that was deleted the first time. The article was recreated in good faith by a furry fan who (I think) had never edited it before. A substantive reference was added, along with many other tweaks and updates. Salting this page indicates to me that you think it will never be an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and I find it hard to understand why that is the case. GreenReaper (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion discussions have already twice concluded the topic is insufficiently notable for an article, and that it was re-created a third time is sufficient reason to salt. Deletion should be based on whether or not the topic warrants an article, not on the content of the article; if the topic has twice been deemed insufficiently notable it shouldn't matter that the content of the third re-creation is different, the topic is still not notable. Salting is not necessarily permanent, an article can always be unsalted by an admin should this non-notable wiki ever become notable enough in the future for an article (highly doubtful, but you never know.) Wikis are a dime a dozen and I can count the ones notable enough for an article on two hands. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that any specific deletion is always based on the current state of the article, at the closing of a deletion discussion. If an article is not able to meet verifiability concerns at that time, then it is deleted, whether or not it theoretically could. I guess I find it hard to understand why the additional reference, which both cites WikiFur as "an extensive website set up by and for furries to represent furry culture and history" and goes on to rely on it to outline the fandom, is - if not sufficient evidence for notability now - at least evidence that it is getting to that point and should not be thrown onto the "assumed non-notable" pile. If it was such a close thing last time, why is it so far now that it would take a huge change to become notable? GreenReaper (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: and protect the title. Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no substantial coverage to suggest notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given the current trend in this AfD compared to the previous one, juxtaposed with the observation that the previous AfD was a close call and the article has better references this time around than it did then, I find myself wondering why that is the case. There are three possiblities I can think of. First is that the judgments expressed this time are based in large part simply on the fact that it's been AfD'ed before and the reviewers are predisposed to vote for deletion without examining as critically as might be whether the article has better references or the subject has become more notable since the previous AfD. Second is that the bar has gone up over the last year or two; what might have passed muster a year or two ago with regard to references and notability is no longer good enough. Third is that it is simply a result of who contributed, because let's face it sometimes the outcome of a particular AfD could go either way depending on who knows about it and decides to weigh in (and it seems ironic that the flood of keeps from supporters that User:Xihr warned about has not materialized). --Mwalimu59 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. The result of both of the previous AfDs was delete, so no "bar" is going up here. The topic in question has never been deemed worthy of keeping in any AfD process. Xihr (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse salt. In the interest in assuming good faith, I will not comment on whether or not any canvassing took place here, but it is clear to me that the only two motions to keep are coming from people who hold a personal stake in the WikiFur project. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even though I edited this article (added a Category tag), my categorization should not indicate an endorsement of its topic. There are zero substantial sources for this article. There are only two trivial sources mentioning the subject in passing. The other sources are *.wikia.org or the like, and cannot be considered as WP:RS. Any basis with which to build this article clearly does not exist, even after it became apparent to editors that reliable sources were required. Therefore the article itself does not belong in Wikipedia. Quatloo (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on available references. The information could be merged into Wikia but would clutter that article by creating a severe imbalance, with far more detailed coverage of one Wikia project than of others. I note in passing my surprise at the hostility expressed toward re-opening a previous AfD. The last one was in late 2006. It's been fairly well established that an AfD decision is not carved in stone; the attacks on the Daniel Brandt article finally succeeded on the fourteenth try. When a Wikipedian wants us to revisit a topic after more than a year, based on a good-faith assertion of changed circumstances, people can of course disagree on the merits but shouldn't be so dismissive on procedural grounds. JamesMLane t c 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing about the pages notability has changed, so no, a new AfD was not warranted. As for your example, the fact that an AfD failed thirteen times in a row and then succeeded on the fourteenth isn't indicative to me that consensus changed or that notability changed, but rather that all you have to do if you want an article deleted is keep bringing it up for nomination, and eventually you will succeed. Xihr (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources in the article are substantial from a secondary source, so easily fails WP:WEB without a second thought.--Otterathome (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say 'keep based on available references.' Can you provide one single, reliable source, nontrivial reference? I ask because I don't think one exists. Your argument is therefore null. Quatloo (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral With a username like mine, you'd probably think I'd choose Keep, but no. My request is not to salt. It would be useful as a redirect, and there's no reason to think it can't get sufficient coverage in the future. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (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.