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 incubation. It looks like there may be some sources out there but they haven't been demonstrated yet so by policy this would be a delete but I also agree with the keep arguments (esp Hiding) that we may find something offline and that this has some notability. Therefore I am moving this to the incubator as while it doesn't yet meet inclusionc riteri it may well only be a metter of time Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furrlough[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and doesn't give any indication of why this particular comic book is notable. Google test shows lots of places to buy issues, and blogs/forums, but nothing approaching an RS. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, you probably could have speedied this. --Pstanton (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but A7 doesn't really apply to comic books. If it were a webcomic, sure, but not physical books. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep IIRC a reasonably well known comic. Needs sourcing of course. Artw (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the thing. I've looked for sources, and I can't find any viable ones. If sources don't exist, the article must be deleted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can source this from Comics Journal issues. Hiding T 15:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can, but you have not yet done it. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you spare me some time? There's no deadline, and if you take the trouble to check my contributions and edit history you'll see I'm the sort of editor you can assume good faith in. If you want to have a stab, feel free, but there's no need to project negativity. Hiding T 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are collectors price guides and similar primary sources, and this mention of the author making some costumes for a dance production. I cannot find any independent sources that analyze this comic. Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now), problems should have been addressed before nominating and if Hiding thinks he can find some sources in a reliable source then I'm happy to give him the time to dig them out. However, if nothing has improved in a few months then I'd suggest we look at it again. (Emperor (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I did attempt to fix it. I combed Google for sources. They don't exist. Therefore, AFD was the next option. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, flagging these problems on the article is the next option. (Emperor (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is no reason that I'm not allowed to send something to AFD before flagging it. If I believe something to be plainly nonnotable, and have made a good faith effort to look for sources, then a keep on procedural grounds is irrelevant. Your !vote has yet to make a statement about the notability of verifiability of the article's topic. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nom on this one. No sources means we should delete; no notability proven. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of sources. It's pretty well known in the furry fandom, but that does not connote WP:N; I'd say let it be over on Wikifur, and we can recreate if something else turns up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable comic book. Even people *not* in the furry fandom have heard of this. why not nominate Batman or Sonic the Comic next? If your rationale is that it's a crappy article or a stub... why not give us some time to actually IMPROVE the article? that or move it to Wikia if the deletionists refuse to comprimise. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman and Sonic both have sources that establish their notability. This one does not. Just because you've heard of it doesn't mean its notable enough for an article. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ringtailed Fox has given an argument for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already on Wikifur, which forked from Wikia some time ago. (GreenReaper actually discussed it this year at Rainfurrest.. If there's another spot on Wikia, I'd say put it there, as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't be moved to Wikia because when Wikifur moved away from Wikia, Wikifur sites at Wikia were taken off-line. (Only furry wiki at wikia is Spanish wiki started in June and it has only 1 article.) --EarthFurst (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single notable source has been provided during the last days. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added one, am trying to track down more but it's a question of leafing through journals which is time consuming. Hiding T 12:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of why this particular comic book is notable. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm arguing AGAINST deletion. Nice try at warping my words. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not even sure what you're talking about so you can rest assured I had no intention of "warping your words." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at 189 issues of the main series (not including Furrlough Color Special #1 and other spin-offs) it is the longest-running furry comic anthology. --EarthFurst (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Claims of "longest-running furry comic anthology" are incorrect, as for example Mickey Mouse and Friends (comic book) has been around since 1939 and has about 300 installments, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories has been around since 1940, and has about 700 installments. Starblueheather (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect neither Disney or WP:FURRY would classify those works as "furry", but as works involving funny animals or cartoon talking animals. That's why they're not in Template:Furry comics. It's a rather subjective definition, as both feature anthropomorphic animals, but Disney's works don't appear to be written to appeal to an adult (as in mature, not sexual) audience. Furry fandom is also hesitant to claim works created over 30 years before the term was invented. GreenReaper (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your highly subjective definition. Your suggestion that furry fandom does not include Mickey Mouse comics is contradicted by own experience as well as the writings of others. The Orange County Weekly says "Furry fetishists begin showing up at sci-fi conventions costumed as anthropomorphic cartoon animals, with Disney characters being a particular favorite ... couples dressed like Mickey and Minnie." Pittsburgh City Paper says "Furries ... appreciation runs the gamut from wearing Mickey Mouse T-shirts to donning full-body fursuits." Omaha World Herald says "They call themselves furries ... have a strong interest in anthropomorphic animals... for example, Mickey Mouse." Starblueheather (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be verifiable but that doesn't mean it's true. "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" are commonly given as five-second explanations to mundanes, including the media, who aren't expected to be able to handle the truth - that people are not just fans of children's works but actually identify with custom-designed anthropomorphic characters, or at least enjoy depictions of such characters. At Anthrocon you might see one or two of the 20% who actually wear costumes in storebought costumes that might be of Disney characters. More likely, the reporter either extrapolated from people trying to explain it, or saw a mouse and figured it must be Mickey. See here for an example of what fursuits really look like - personal characters, or at most characters such as Zig Zag from works intended for furry consumption.

Besides, saying "some furries like it" misses the point. Whether or not a work is recognized as furry depends on whether its fans predominately like it because it has anthropomorphic animals in it (i.e. it has furries as fans), or for some other reason. Certainly, some furry fans enjoy Micky Mouse, or The Rats of NIMH, or Talespin - but they're not considered "part of the furry genre" because it is clear that Mickey Mouse is liked by a lot of other people. You can try to make it more objective - say, "meadia including anthropomorphic animals treated in a mature way, and intended for adults" - but you end up including things like Maus that a significant proportion of furries and/or non-furries are going to consider non-furry due to widespread popularity outside of the fandom.

To take an example from a different field: Imagine ravers start wearing pacifiers. That does not make all pacifiers part of the raver subculture, because they are still used far more by babies; nor does it make all babies ravers. However, it does suggest that those adults who wear them are ravers, and pacifiers which come with sparkles on may be identified as "raverware" because they are predominately used by ravers. GreenReaper (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested in reading any more about how you judgmentally and disrespectfully believe that furry fans like myself who are huge into Disney are somehow not "true." It's the life we live, I've backed it up with three sources, so just get over yourself. Starblueheather (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update Can't find any sources as yet beyond what is in the article at the moment. This might be a good case for the incubator, until I can find the time to scour all my journal back issues for likely coverage. Hiding T 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got in contact with the editor, Elin Winkler. This WikiFur article suggests the issue he mentioned is Comics Buyer's Guide #1260, 9 January 1998, particularly p10 and pp30-31. CBG #1379 (24 April 2000) may also be of interest, if not for this comic then for work by Fred Patten, Terrie Smith and Shanda Fantasy Arts/Shanda The Panda (which is under deletion discussion right now). Hopefully you can find something in there if you have them. I'm also asking User:EarthFurst who wrote that article and apparently has them to hand.

Here's what he said:

The last time there was any coverage, it was in an issue of The Comic Buyer's Guide magazine/newspaper, and that was in I think 1997 or 1998.
Furrlough hasn't gotten much news coverage, mostly because it just chugs along quietly. ^_^;

Alas, I cannot remember the exact date or issue number of the CBG that we had the big Radio Comix/Furrlough article in;
I do have it clipped out, but it's buried in a box in the storage unit.
It was a multiple page article in their special "All Funny Animals" issue.

The Comic Buyer's Guide website does have the Diamond Top 300 Sales Charts for various years and Furrlough has placed on that;
it's not brilliant reporting, but it is statistical information. Don't know how much that would help,
but it is data collated by outside sources that proves Furrlough existed in those years.
Links to the relevant pages to follow:

http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1626 (January 1999, Furrlough #73)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1633 (August 1999, Furrlough #80)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1427 (Jan 2000, Furrlough #85)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1431 (May 2000, Furrlough #89)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1152 (Oct 2000, Furrlough #94)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1153 (Nov 2000, Furrlough #95)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1154 (Dec 2000, Furrlough #96)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1150 (Jan 2001, Furrlough #97)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1228 (Apr 2001, Furrlough #100)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1236 (Dec 2001, Furrlough #108)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1192 (Jan 2002, Furrlough #109)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1203 (Dec 2002, Furrlough #120)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1140 (Mar 2003, Furrlough #121)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1104 (Nov 2003, Furrlough #129)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=850 (Jan 2004, Furrlough #131)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=814 (Jan 2005, Furrlough #142)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=799 (May 2005, Furrlough #147)
http://www.cbgxtra.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1529 (Jan 2006, Furrlough #154)

There have also been mentions of Furrlough in the Diamond Dateline, a special trade publication for comic store retailers,
but again, I haven't got exact issue numbers or dates.

GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBG would be reliable, but I don't have copies. Diamond Dateline is not what I would consider reliable for what we are discussing here. Hiding T 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think given that the sources exist, that's a big step towards keeping, since notability is about the presumption. Hiding T 09:57, 1 December 2009 (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.