Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extinctioners

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners

[edit]

Keep/Clean up Why is the Extinctioner artical up for deletion? If it is just because of its popularity, then it has already been proven that the Extinctioner comic series already has a large fanbase with numerous fangroups and a distrabution region that spreads over two continents. It may not be as popular as "Spiderman", "X-men", "Daredevil", or "Star Wars", but many underground comics are not widely known. Does the artical provide too much information? In a sense, yes. It focuses too much on the characters themselves than the actual history of the continuity of Extinctioners and the comic's history. If the artical in question is being targeted because of it's assosiation to Furdom, then there is no reason to continue this discussion. Should Extinctioners move to Wikifur? No, I do not believe that it should. If I may, I would like to point out several other comics, such as Shanda the Panda[[1]], Atomic Mouse[[2]], Albedo Anthropomorphics[[3]], and Buck O'Hare[[4]], are not apart of Wikifur despite the fact that they are listed as Furry Comics[[5]] right here in Wikipedia. If Extinctioners is truely classified as a Furry Comic here on Wikipedia, and the Administrators seek to move it to Wikifur, then why is it allowed that other Furry Comics remain undistubred? Kantorock 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep&Transwiki Upon further revision of this article, I've noticed that it does, indeed contain a uselessly large amount of information. It should be cut down to a minimal size, with only a short summary of main characters as a group, and the rest should be transferred to a main article on Wikifur. Though the article has a right to exist on Wikipedia, it does not need more than a simple summary and a link to a more thorough article on a personal site. Dikastis

Delete/Transwiki as nonnotable, possible marketing abuse of wikipedia. Same as anthroid and Andorozon afds. Too obscure:perhaps as many as 674 google hits. The subject is more cyborg furry crimefighters in tight-fitting costumes. Plus some repetition with the Andorozon article. Transwiki to [Wikifur] if the creator wants to. Bwithh 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE TO ADMINS The Extinctioner's creator is posting multiple keep votes in the discussion below, and there are several likely pro-keep sockpuppet users Bwithh 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give the guy a break, he's new to the process. I've been trying to manage unsigned votes since they started coming in. He's got a big fan base, it's not surprising that some will show up to try and support him. I'll strike the multiple votes. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shawntae Howard Apologies for the multiple keeps, I'm not familiar with how wiki works, I thought you had to add that if you were going to comment, that, and I know nothing about script writing or code so I'm sure all of my posts are wrong in one way or another. I'm learning as I do. Just figuring out how to make something bold letters is a bit of a challenge. Shawntae Howard
Well, it says its being published at the moment by Shanda Fantasy Arts, which is a very small scale publisher, a step above self-publishing. They pay "up to $10" per page - $5 for pin up art. The last copy of the Extinctioners is dated March 2005 and the one before that, March 2004, and the one before that Jan. 2003... seems to be annual publishing of 40 page comics. Couldnt find a Jan-March 2006 edition though. Bwithh 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a tough one then. I'll withdraw my vote until we get some more feedback. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page as a form of marketing! (I am not the creator of the comics) what must I do to prevent deletion?! an why now is is being concidered for Deletion, I worked hard on this page, why is it being concidered for deletionRVDDP2501 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVDDP2501, don't take the afd personally, its not to undervalue your hard work. The concern is that your subject may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia on notability grounds. If you can show verifiable proof that this comic is read and known widely enough, your article would pass the Afd test. I also suggested that the highly commendable project, Wikifur may a better home (with a better audience) for your efforts. All you need to do is copy and paste to that wiki. Bwithh 23:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you are not the creator of these comics, and do not have permission from the creator, then there are significant copyright violations from the use of the comic images in this way (would also apply if you transferred the images to Wikifur) Bwithh 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH TRUST ME, I GOT SHAWNTAE HOWARD'S PERMISSION AND SUPPORT, JUST ASK HIM AT <[email protected]>, HE'LL TELL YOU.RVDDP2501 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unless the article is directly violating policies, and I don't see that it is - as I know the creator of this comic personally and the poster is not him (the creator was also the one who pointed out the possible deletion of this article with some concern, so I highly doubt that the person who wrote this article is violating Shawntae's wishes) - then I don't see why it should be deleted. I read Extinctioners and know several others who do, some of whom aren't primarily interested in anthropomorphics, but in superhero genre comics. A new issue of the comic has come out within the past two months, so it is clearly still in production. - GrowlyGenet 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above comment is GrowlyGenet's first and only edit to Wikipedia Bwithh 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, yes, but not my only edit. I was already juggling around the idea of editing for some time and had viewed the aforementioned article long before it came up for deletion. I remember when it was merely a stub. And I have been active on other Wikis before as well. I just thought it better to sign my name to an edit than to merely leave an anonymous IP number as my tag. Besides, now that I have an account, I am happily seeing about correcting a few oversights regarding missing articles for both cartoons and sci-fi shows. Growly 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: A user already mentioned that this comic is an annual production. To delete it from the wiki just for this seems illogical and unfair. So, please don't remove this comic from this site. Thanks! ^_^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.29.121 (talk • contribs) 10:22, Jun 5, 2006 (UTC).

SHAWNTAE HOWARD, CREATOR Extinctioners is a quarterly comic not an annual, but due to injuries, graduate studies, and serious family issues over the past 2 years, yes, it has come out with only 2 issues a year, the primary comic and it's annual. However, I do not see why that would cause it for grounds for deletion from wikipedia, nor do I personally consider the comic book 'furry' since it also features a main human cast so I'd say I personally feel a little insulted that the idea that it belongs on wikifur is it's appropriate location. The creator of the page did indeed e-mail me and asked me for permission to create the page, which I consented and gave him information on character bios, which he used in his article (such as the person who created the less detailed wikifur page did). The company that the comic is published by has been in existance for 10 years and still is currently publishing, infact an issue of Extinctioners is available for pre-order right this moment in the current month's Diamond Previews listed under Shanda Fantasy Arts. It's readership spans the globe, with the internet only helping it's notority, with only the limited resources of foreign readers being able to easily aquire an issue. The comic has also spanned a number of yahoo fan groups with memberships in the thousands. I'm not sure who reported that the book was not worthy of a wikipage in the first place, probably out of some sort of spite, but if onther comic related material can have a page I don't see why this one doesn't as well. It's a comic that's been in existance for 10 years now, regardless of it's frequncey of issues per year, there still are issues per year, with the latest currently in production from me (and it's page lenght went from 32, to 48, now down to 40 of which I do all of the work on from writing, penciling, inking, and greytoning, so yes, it takes a one man production crew time to complete when I'm also a working teacher who's taking graduate classes and supporting a family at the same time.) I'm not sure if this is enough proof to maintain the page on wiki, but if no, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] and I can further answer any inuquires. Additional note, a poster stated that the last publishede issue was March 2005, this is incorrect, the latest issue #15 came out just 2 months ago, the SFA page has not yet been updated by it's webmaster. http://www.rabbitvalley.com/item_6468_1959___Extinctioners-Volume-2-Number-15.html Is proof of its existance and availability.

Keep Proof that extinctioners is 'known and read widely enough' could be derived from the membership lists of the following yahoo groups, which (usually) list user name, real name, age and location. The groups also indicate an active and ongoing interest in the publication. Though the information is publicly available, the groups are protected by yahoo's content rating system, which requires viewers to sign in.

  • Artica's fan club: [6] Fan group for the character Artica, and lately, Scarlet as well. 1832 members
  • Beauty & Courage [7] Fan group for the characters Pandora and CeeCee. 358 members
  • Club Extinctioners [8] General fan group. 569 members
  • Extinctioners Storage [9] An archive of older pictures, required because of yahoo's file limit of 20MB per group. 107 members
  • Armies of Alden [10] Group for fan fiction set in the extinctioner universe. Stories range from comedy to erotica to military/hard scifi. 205 members
  • Club Extinctioners Listed [11] Yahoogroup's policies mean that any group that contains even mildly titillating material is not listed in its searchable directories. This group was set up specifically to be listed, and to provide a gateway into the others. 729 members

As a note Bwithh, the phrase 'read and known widely enough' does not seem to appear anywhere in wikipedia, let alone as a standard. Is there a more specific/official requirement you are reffering to? - ANTIcarrot 13:20 GMT 5/6/06

    • Above user User:ANTIcarrot has a short contribution history. and yes, I've refering to Wikipedia's guidelines on article notability. This is an encyclopedia with certain standards for acceptance. These standards are debated and not fixed in stone, but they exist. See Wikipedia:Notability. I invite you to make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • User contribution lists do not reflect other contributions made before a user account is created. You might wish to bare this in mind when talking about the contributions of other people. For the record I've been editing and writing articles since feb 2004 - which is longer than you 'newbie'. I would invite you to be more polite in the future, and clearer about what your concerns about an article are. Notability is much easier to understand than the word by itself. Both for new commers, and those more familar with creating content than deleting it.


I have heard of Extinctioners a number of times, though I've yet to read it. It seems to me that the three pages referencing it could easily be merged into one, combining 'anthroid' and 'Andorozon' as subtopics in the Extinctioners page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesdeleroy (talk • contribs) .

'Andorozon' AND 'Extinctioners' are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Comics which at one point had a fictional crossover and should not be either deleted or mergedRVDDP2501 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as it does have a lengthy publishing history despite gaps in its schedule. Go gently with the arguments, those folks who are opposing deletion. Please remember that this is a place for rational discussion about the merits of the article in question, and the best way to ensure that the article remains on Wikipedia is by assuring the nominators and other participants in the discussion that the topic meets notability requirements. This means providing links to credible sources that indicate the book's existence - and even then, as it is a small-market publication, the article might not quite meet the notability requirements. I would note that the article as it stands, as with the Andorozon page also up for deletion, needs some serious work to be properly Wikified. Tony Fox 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to full keep based on non-trivial coverage as noted by the author below and the history of the magazine as compared to others with long-standing articles in Wikipedia - with the proviso that the article be pared down and cleaned up. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Extinctioners is NOT Past its peak. IT is one of the most inventive, sexy, well drawn, Thought out comics that is out there. It still is colorful, well made, and creative even when other comics have lost its luster. The artist and writer have created the most colorful characters. THese characters are so different from each other it's amazing and inspirational. PAST its PEAK BAH! It still keeps going and will never grow old! This comic is a staple for the furry world :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) . - comment placed at top of page, moved here. Tony Fox 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Transwiki Cleanup This would be an excellent article for WikiFur. It does seem to be a bit heavy for the regular WikiPedia. (The character sheets section, for one, I think could be deleted.) Most of the characters seem to have 2 illustrations, which is excessive. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked on WikiFur, and they already have an article on Extinctioners. The main characters have their own articles there, which I do not think should be done here. Basically, I think this article just needs to be trimmed down. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 23:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawntae Howard: Creator Perhaps it is felt that it belongs on Wikifur is because the main characters happen to be humaniod animals. However, I as it's creator do not consider the comic "Furry" as it is traditionally thought of at all, and while the individual who worked on the page focused on those characters, they were in the process of including the human characters from the comic as well, as he was asking for information about those particular characters as well. Also, I notice that on wikipedia an article for the comic Gold Digger, written by Fred Perry is allowed, a comic that also started out with a strong anthropomorphic cast and features human main characters as well, yet it is not recommended that this article would be an excellent article for Wikifur. I've noted that there is an article on Albedo Anthropomorphics, a sci fi comic with an all anthropomorphic cast on Wikipedia, yet it hasn't been recommended as an article best suited for Wikifur (when it could be argued that that book was a large influence in the creation of many anthro related comic book titles, including the much acclaimed Usagi Yojimbo, who got it's start within the pages of that comic.) May I also note that very short articles on the 'furry' comic titles of Furrlough, Wild Life, and Genus have Wikipedia articles, yet not comments that these would be best suited for Wikifur, when techincally since they do advertise themselves AS furry comics, it would make since that is where they belong. If it's a question of who publishes Extinctioners, would it be more relevent if it were published by Antartic Press, who I am ironically in negotiations to do just that? Evidence of it's continued production can be seen here: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99828/ ,

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/ , and http://www.furaffinity.net/full/99819/. These are examples of pages currently in production for the next issue (Apologies for not adding shorting links, I'm not familiar with how to do that on these pages).

It is also stated that the reasons it would be better on Wikifur is because it already has an article done by someone on it, but may I also point out that many of Wikipedia subjects are repeated on Wikifur as well, such as the above stated articles on Antartic Press, Gold Digger, Atomic Mouse (also published by Shanda Fantasy Arts), and Furrlough to just give a brief example. Granted, one source may be more informative than the other depending on the individual who wrote them, however, I haven't seen complaints that one belongs on the other as I have with the Extinctioners article, which may now be on Wikifur, but was not as detailed as the one on wikipedia until the creator of the article just recently moved it there due to this complaint and deletion hearing. And if it is felt it is a bit 'heavy' for wikipedia due to it's amount of informative information about the characters, then I'd like to point out any of your other superhero article such as Justice League or X-Men related characters. The fact that so much information on each character can be found should be a testiment to just how much the individual who created the page has gotten from the comics and online sources. Perhaps if the creator trimmed down the amount of images in the article to just one per character it discusses that would be acceptable, though I'd like to point out these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-men and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Frost as an example of an article with multiple images featuring a single character.

Or is the bottem line that because the book is published by an independent company rather than one of the mainstream companies it's validity as a wikipedia article is not as up to standard or is it it's content that makes it so (which again, I'll say again, if its due to the anthropomorphic cast that has been talked about in the article thus far is the issue, there are a number of human ones too, if humans make people less xenophobic). I do not say that Wikifur is a bad place, nor that I'm disturbed that an article on it has appeared there, but I as the creator, do not consider the comic furry anymore than the creator of Gold Digger or Ninja High School would just because they use anthropomorphic characters in their story telling. I hope that's not the case, because if someone decides to do an article on the currently acclaimed small press comic Mouse Guards, I hope it too won't be considered more appropriate to be a wikifur article because it's cast are anthropomorphic mice. 207.69.137.34Shawntae Howard

Mr. Howard, My comment about this article being a bit heavy for the general WikiPedia has nothing to do with the fact that the article as it currently stands is primarily about the anthro/furry characters. Rather, it is about the sheer number of images, and the level of detail. The weight of the characters, for Ghu's sake? Date of birth in a non-standard year count (when is year 989?)
your pointing out Emma Frost as a comparison is partially invalid, as there is more text per picture, and the images are scattered throughout the text. In Extinctioners, once down into the character info, there is almost 50/50 text to image. I have also pointed the main author of the page toward some templates the Comic Project has that I thought might be useful. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up I'm a little bit disturbed, actually, that this entry is being contested on the grounds of popularity rather than factual validity or intellectual property. There are no certain stipulations in the Wikipedia policy that outline exactly how popular certain media or certain topics must be in order to justify their existence. I think the reasons for this are clear. Wikipedia would lose a lot of its intellectual appeal if it filtered articles on the grounds of popularity. An infrequently visited article isn't irrelevant, and no one can truly predict when a thread will be popular or unpopular. The other arguments for the removal of the Extinctioners entry seem to imply that the author of the article did not have permission of the creator, which he did (see Mr. Howard's entry) or that the article is being used as a 'marketing tool', an expression just as subjective as 'popularity'. If file space and/or bandwidth are the core issues behind the loosely used expressions I just stated, we can take steps to reduce image file size and streamline the article. However, this is likely not the issue since it was stated that the entry receives little traffic. I don't wish to slander anyone with claims of bias, but I can't help but think that irrational and emotional motives are governing some of the claims to remove this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.54.67 (talk • contribs) .

Keep/Clean up The Comic is past it's peak but still very Notable in underground circles. I've seen Extinctioners Full sized Plushes, two video games, Custome Heroclicks, A role playing game, a Soundtrack and there are at least Two Spinoff comics, purhaps more I Havn't located yet. it's been featured by Diamond Preveiws twice, and it has several fanclubs that have dozens of members. It's very underground, and fans aren't totoaly organized but they DO number quite a bit. Shanda Fantasy Arts isn't "Next to Self-Publishing" Either. It's a private publishing group run by comic book insiders. its very small-print but well known in underground comic circles. They've worked with Stan Lee, Dan Decarlo and Stan Sakai in the past. Exticntioners IS well know, just in a diferent way. I say the article should be cleaned up for Wiki standards, IE Drop the extensive profiles and talk a bit more about the actual history of the comic rather than it's fiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua the samurai (talk • contribs) .

I've just reorganized and moved some comments to the bottom where they're supposed to be. This was looking a mess. Tony Fox 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To Vik-Thor OH, well, that makes more sense then and gives some concrete information of what can be done to prevent the page's deletion. Now the page creator actually has something to go on, because before, one has to admit, the reasonings given for possible deletion were a little on the vague side. I will inform him to reduce the number of images and needless data then. Out of curiosity and personal noisiness, just why was the article nominated for deletion in the first place? What was the inital grounds or complaint in the first place? 207.69.137.13 Shawntae Howard

The first reason for deletion is the one right at the top of the list, under the big red box. Basically, it's a question of notability as defined by the site guidelines.Tony Fox 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Then I would assume that since it has been proven contrary to the point that the topic has more notability than originally thought and it has as much notability as other comics that currently have articles on wikipedia, that the issue for deletion, if that is afterall the primary reason for it's possible deletion, has been more than met? Again the latest issue of the comic was released in February 2006, it's next publication is in the current Diamond's Preview for release in August 2006, evidence presented in the form of links show that it has a very active online presence with an active fan base. And that it is considered a comic book first, not pigeon holed as a "furry comic". In addition, Extinctioners has gotten a full page review 3 yearas ago in The Comic Buyer's Guide and received a B rating and it is currently listed among other comics in the 2006 edition of the Overstreet Price Guide, currently available in any national book store such as Barnes and Noble or Borders.207.69.139.9 Shawntae Howard

Please don't mark in more than one 'keep' opinion per person, please. And this process runs for several days; the decision will be made by an administrator at the end of that process. Tony Fox 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Clean up Don't let the name fool you, I had to think a while before commenting here. I agree with the gentleperson waaaaaay up there about how there's *way* too many images. Cut it down to a cover in the comic 'infobox', a small 'group shot', and maybe a villian. Also, leave out all the 'stats' in the writeups. We really don't need to know details about *every* character. --;; If there was ever an entry that needed editing--read: trimmed to fit--this is it. Furrysaint 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Above user, User:Furrysaint has a short contribution history Bwithh 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Does that matter? It just seems like you're going out of your way to denigrate--or hint at sockpuppetry--any people who do not want it deleted. And your comments down below about Major Fabian seem to indicate a severe prejudice against the 'furry' community. I think you may want to reread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Furrysaint 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bwithh, your repeated attempt to use the length of people's edit logs as a weapon against them instead of interacting with their opinions in a neutral and civil manner smacks of attempting to turn Wikipedia into a popularity contest. I second the opinion that you should reconsider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. As well, I invite you and Tony Fox to reread Wikipedia:Notability. Note that the first two sentences in the box read: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. I invite you to become more familiar with Wikipedia. Go ahead and post my IP in response to this, it's not going to insult me one bit. -- 11:57 EDT 07 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.66.233.230 (talk • contribs) .
For the record, it's common practice to point out new or short-edit-count users in AfD discussions, because often they're being recruited to join the argument on the incorrect consideration that AfD is a vote, which it is not. Taking a poke at someone for doing what's pretty well standard procedure is not a good way to make an impression in an AfD discussion. Second, I'd like to point out that while the notability guidelines are just that, they're also the basis for keeping or deleting about every article of the hundred or so that hit AfD every day. Finally, I'm kind of trying to help *keep* the article, so I'm a bit upset that you'd suggest I'm doing something to not keep it. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Tony Fox 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be pleased to assume good faith when others do the same, sir. You tell me to assume good faith, but permit Bwithh to continue assuming lack of good faith withotu comment, and then tell me that something that clearly states it is not a guideline is, in fact, a guideline. I am not attempting to "make an impression". I am pointing out inconsistencies that others have not mentioned. I would ask you to please reconcile your words with your actions, sir. If you wish to continue conversing I will see about creating a user account so that you do not have the impression of holding a conversation with a shadow, but until such time, I remain respectfully anonymous. 12:32 EDT 07 June 2006
What I'm trying to do is keep this discussion from going to hell, and while I do agree that Bwithh has been actively pointing out new editors and has made a couple of comments I'd rather he hadn't, arguing with him over it is basically counterproductive. As for notability, I'd suggest you take a look through the AfD pages for previous days and survey how many of them use 'NN' or 'non-notable' as an argument. Once again, I'm not against the article - I'm going to give it a rewrite this evening and try my best to save the damn thing. If you'd like to continue discussion, I suggest you do so at my talk page. Tony Fox 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been pointed out its pretty standard to note new users and editors with a short history in an afd discussion (for similar reasons, we have the the warning sign template for this kind of situation). This practice doesn't break the good faith guideline. Anyway, I apologize if certain people feel offended at my occasional attempt at humour (I try not to be too serious all the time in the afd process). I'm not opposed to furry fan culture per se. I just feel that the hard work going into the Extinctioners article is more suited to a home on the excellent Wikifur project than in a general encyclopedia, in terms of notability etc. Bwithh 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User account created and discussion moved to your talk page, as promised and requested. CydoniaRaven 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there is now an article for each character over at the WikiFur version. Perhaps something short to summarize here, with a link to the main content over at WikiFur? GreenReaper 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

My Log in Name is Lordgriffin, and yess I woudl like to talk about Extinctioners. i hope this is within the scope of what is permissible. I am currently a Major in military Inteligence deployed with the U.S. Army in Iraq, and I am a fan of teh comix.

Your service is gowing and known and it was quite extraordinary that you posted on extinctioners, and I admit i am a little distressed that you ight delet it. I do not know much about your administration but if tere is a large concern about content, it woudl seem a better policy, if yoru able, to screen these things BEFORE hand.

I thin what concernes me most is he way our society looks atthese policies, it is actually more accepted to write and draw about torture and murder, then it is to be suggestive about sexuality.

Your site is of course yours, I hope you will find Extinctioners DOES have a place here, but I recognize you will do what you consider best for your site

If allowed a Vote I vote to KEEP Extinctioners

Major Norman M. Fabian

  • Comment - Hokay. I've just taken a sledgehammer to the article to try and pound it into something that's much shorter and provides a general introduction to the comic that, if someone is interested, will lead them to the WikiFur article with much more detail. I hope everyone approves, and this hasn't been an hour of my time gone to waste.... Tony Fox 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message to Lordgriffin

Hi, I am the guy who originally created the Wikipedia.org Extinctioners page, I am amazed and suprised that my page has not only recieved so much support to keep "alive" but from where and from whom, I am so glad that my page has been so well recieved that various people from nearly every corner of the globe has protested the deletion of the Extinctioners Wikipedia.org page and I would like to thank every one for their support and for those who are saddened by the current state of the Wikipedia.org page can find a somewhat better version at http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Extinctioners which now has individual character pages (make sure you all check th bottom of the page for Extinctioners Characters)and I hope everyone likes it, now back to Lordgriffin, hope you and your friends like the Wikifur.com version and hope you and every one you know makes it out of Iraq in one piece, Good Luck and God speed from RVDDP2501 and from Barbados (home country)RVDDP2501 10:22, 9 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Extinctioners&oldid=1137838432"