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.
WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006
Keep. What statements in the article cannot be verified? We've tried to keep it to the facts wherever possible. The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is. Only two of them are to WikiFur itself, though, and one of those is an announcement that could also have been referenced to the Wikipedia edit, or to a LiveJournal post. I thought it best to make a page for it on WikiFur where it could be given in context with later posts. Wikis aren't always great secondary references, but I don't see a problem with it being a primary one for itself. This article was deleted once, and rightly so, because it was badly written and the site was one month old. I think things have improved now. GreenReaper02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete."The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is." This statement makes judging this site's notability easier. Andrew Levine 02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of most wikis. The documents concerning their foundation and policy are hosted on their websites and related websites. The best place to go for information about Wikipedia is Wikipedia - an article which happens to have large numbers of references to meta-wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, and even to itself. It also happens to be the most comprehensive coverage of its topic. It's the same for WikiFur. I could link directly to LiveJournals where significant members of the subject area have said what they thought about WikiFur, but why not just point to the wiki page where they are already referenecd and tied together into an article? GreenReaper03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been covered in almost every major media source in the world. That establishes its notability well. A notable subject needs more than just a single short mention in a free weekly in Pittsburgh. Andrew Levine 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Comparing Wikifur to Wikipedia in terms of media coverage is unfair. Wikipedia is a large, general purpose encyclopedia aimed at the general public, wikifur is not. A by-the-word interpretation of WP:WEB does not refer at all to size or distribution of the third-party source, only that it be well-known. The fact that this non-furry third-party source chose to directly quote from wikifur and redistribute its content is an example of wikifur's notability and a demonstration of it's usefulness outside the fandom. -- DeVandalizer10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who originated the Wikipedia comparison. And if we allowed every fan website that was mentioned once in a local paper, we'd have to expand our definition of notable to allow thousands of fansites more. Andrew Levine 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but I still don't see how it is notable, I prod'ed it but in fact I had suggestions from some other administrators to speedy delete it under WP:CSD#A7 and redirect to Wikia, and I don't think this would be far off. I see no need to include every Wikia wiki here, even if it started off as an alternative to publishing Furry pages on Wikipedia itself. (And of course it does not satisfy WP:WEB).--Konst.ableTalk05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section that mentions furry topics on Wikipedia is just intended as a explanation, not a claim to notability. (Though perhaps it's notable for being most vandalized as a direct result of its content? It was bad enough that eventually a special extension was made. :-) GreenReaper06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in reply to your statement: My belief is that material that is verifiable and does not contain any NPOV violations should have a place on Wikipedia. Using other people's reports (notability) is a way to try to achieve some assurance of that, but it seems like it's just a shortcut for Wikipedians doing the fact-checking themselves, and that when it is easy to do then they should do it. I can understand that when it's a complicated question of law or science which is hard for laymen to understand (which is why there is NOR, to avoid that uncertainty), but I don't really see the application to this particular article, which makes reasonable, referenced assertions about the mission and history of a wiki that has existed and operated for over a year, and which is well-known within its sphere. GreenReaper06:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What exactly does the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) have to do with discussion? I fail to see the relevance, other than the fact that the article was for a wiki about a particular fandom. Also, I'm curious as to why you'd vote for deletion on an article with similar scope as the article you fought to keep. Do you believe that because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) came out in favor of deletion for that particular fan-based wiki that it means that no fan-based wiki can ever be on wikipedia? Please expand your reasoning. -- DeVandalizer10:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that Wikipedia has spoken about fan wikis, and that a simple list would suffice for all of them. WoWWiki was simply the AfD that got me to rethink my stance on the whole subject. Havok(T/C/c) 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia doesn't take a blanket position on wikis, they are considered based on notability per WP:WEB. Also, trying to get other pages deleted after a page you supported got deleted can be seen as retaliation and a violation of WP:POINT. --Milo H Minderbinder14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a local paper is not sufficient mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Also, it is annoying when they do not define in the article what the hell they are talking about. The article has a click link to a dictionary definition article Furry fandom which is unencyclopedic as well. Edison16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't find a lot of the reasons cited for deletion here to be that compelling. Just because the wiki isn't covered in Time magazine doesn't make it non-notable; I realize major media coverage makes a handy shortcut to deciding what deserves space, but it shouldn't be used as a crutch either. The article should be improved, rather than deleted before it has the chance to get better, as I can't think of any serious reason it can't be made better or more referenced. --ToyDragon
Delete - Why it fails WP:WEB. It's sources are Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimania wiki, a something awful forum post, and the only media reference here is not about Wikifur, but about furries and only mentions Wikifur as a reference. It is basically no more a source than this reference to a different wiki and that wiki article got deleted. I've seen articles full of sources and even gotten on television by MSNBC and they've been deleted. Basically one vague mention in a newspaper article doesn't cut it for most articles and I see hundreds deleted each month with similar sources and they all just aren't notable enough. DyslexicEditor19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not entirely convinced it's notable, but having an article in a printed newspaper acknowledging it as a "Wikipedia-like" source for its particular niche is a step up from many articles as far as WP:RS goes, and the article itself is well cited. Shimeru07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to a full keep... seems like a noteworthy wiki, especially for one devoted to a niche topic. Also am beginning to suspect that some of the delete voting is driven either by that topic, or by previous AfDs for other "fan wikis." Shimeru00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh... it's one of the most notable wikis in Wikia, and appears to have had media/wiki community exposure that's not entirely trivial. There's no major problems in the article that would warrant much controversy. While it's not exactly a household word it probably barely passes WP:WEB in my opinion. At very least this is xlink-worthy material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails all points of WP:WEB and there is no significant coverage meeting WP:INDY to think that we should override the WP:WEB guideline. There is no evidencce that the content of WikiFur has multiple independent coverage. The UrsaMajor award is not well known, and it is an award from the fans of furrys so it may not even be independent as the WikiFur editors are also fans of furries. There is no evidence that the content is redistributed by an independent site. As all criteria of WP:WEB are not met, an article on it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. GRBerry19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever I wanted to say, has honestly been said, so. I don't see why it should be deleted. Disinclination 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ... but needs a complete rewrite; present article talks about irrelevant aspects of the site (non-notability on wiki, edit wars). └VodkaJazz / talk┐16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the second paragraph, starting "Like Wookieepedia,"? The objective there was to give some context for its foundation, to answer the question "why does this website exist?" I think this is something that needs to be answered, and those are the reasons I had in mind, but there's probably a better way to put it - I'd welcome any edits, or suggestions on how to improve that section. GreenReaper21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way this is notable. WIth reference to article number: I've seen articles where the info is taken from a new user's userpage, so it's no wonder the articles are as numerous as they are. Take out all the Category:People articles and you have far fewer than other wikis that were deleted for notability reasons. Also a depressingly low number of google hits. Apparently it's a favorite at Wikia:Wikia, but that doesn't make it notable. Seems very self-referencing of the "wiki universe" section of the internets, someone with no knowledge of Wikia and Wikipedia would not care. By the way, I only have like 20 edits, lol. Miltopia20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 2100 articles in Category:People. I do not know how many of these articles would be included in the conservative count - some are, of course, stubs, while others are highly trafficked, linked and/or featured - but I'd say around 4/5 of them, or ~1700. This is not surprising given that the chief part of a community is its people. But why would anyone want to take them out? WikiFur is not Wikipedia - it is intended (in part) as a public directory of members of the furry fandom, and it is used as such by many, who find it convenient to get a summary of facts, accomplishments, and links to further information. We do encourage users to develop public articles about themselves if they are in the fandom, because in this case much of the information that would normally go on user pages is relevant to the topic of the wiki. It is often the topic that new users have the most knowledge about to hand, so they can make a quick contribution, plus it gets them used to having their writing edited. GreenReaper21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just saying as far as measuring WikiFur's notability by article number isn't accurate because most of those articles are written about people who, frankly, don't matter in a global encyclopedic sense any more than I do. So, number of articles probably shouldn't be used to offset the low google results, since the articles are not at all about significant people. Like, it's not like these are essential articles to be knowledgeable about the furry fandom, and many are autobiographical. This is compared to ED (might as well get that out of the way), which, while not a good article candidate in itself in my opinion, has information about famous internet people that you just can't find anywhere else, thus making it a more notable source of its purpose in comparison to WikiFur. I think the very low traffic kind of speaks for itself. I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard not to like insult your wiki and am not expressing myself well and probably insulting it anyway, but I'm doing my best here. Miltopia22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the only person who's brought up measuring notability by article number (twice) is you. We all know anyone can make a wiki with lots of articles, usually by importing them. The link I pasted above was in reference to editors, as I see community involvement as a big factor in wiki notability. In that sense, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "very low traffic". WikiFur certainly don't get a billion hits a week - more like 120,000 - but then the furry fandom does not have a billion people in it. We're happy with our figures, as they make for a high-traffic site within its domain (especially considering we're not giving out porn :-). I would argue that this, plus the ability to verify the facts in the article from the given references (which I don't think anyone has disputed), is sufficient reason to keep it. ED is a discussion apart from this AfD. While I agree with Wikipedia's link policy, I think it should probably have an article. GreenReaper20:58, 8 November 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.