Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RainFurrest

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 was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RainFurrest[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

RainFurrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable convention, no reasonable coverage in the years it's been around and defunct. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I’m not sure how it’s not notable. The convention is talked about decently in a book written by Fred Patten. He’s a notable source on the topic. I cited his book Furry Fandom Conventions, 1989-2015. This book has been cited in several furry articles.
The topic has also been covered in a book called Fan Identities in the Furry Fandom. This book has also been cited been cited in several furry articles.
There are also some news sources talking about this convention like the Seattle Metropolitan.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, I even found a IHeart podcast on this [right here].19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, a pod cast, super definitive on notability! Please provide significant, in depth coverage. kthx. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Please don't use sarcasm in text, I have a hard time reading peoples tone in text. I will admit that wasn’t my best argument. But, I’m not sure how the sources I used don't prove the topic is notable. There are like 3 sources cited in that article that go in decent depth on the topic.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop using sarcasm when you provide actual sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Thanks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: like what? Like an entire book or chapter on the topic? The article ConFurence has like the same amount of sources as the article I created. I was gonna use [this] but, I think it might be satire.
I have seen other furry articles cite Flayrah, and Flayrah discusses the convention as well.
It feels like you are asking me to find 50 essays to prove this topic is notable.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa1, what Praxidicae is saying is for you to provide WP:RS. Furthermore please see arguments to avoid in an AFD. The existence of an article that may look like yours isn’t a valid point to make in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: I thought I did provide reliable sources. There are two sociology books cited in that article. One from Bloomsbury Publishing and another from McFarland. The authors of these books are sociologists. One of the authors literally has his own Wikipedia page Fred Patten. Also doesn't reliability depend on the context? It's not like this is a medical article.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa1, I’m afraid it was, the hidden premise there was basically implying that an article that already exists here optimizes the same sources you are currently using for 'your' article & yet it is being put up for deletion, that was indeed the hidden premise, which is basically being subtly WP:POINTy & as aforementioned, an example of a quintessential ATA in an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: actually I kinda understand want you mean now. I read what you linked.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: my overall point is that I'm not sure how my article doesn't meet notability. One book cited in my article has like 7 pages on the topic and the other book I cited has like 3 or 5 pages. That's like ten or more pages. There are also like maybe like 5 or 7 news sources on this topic as well. These aren't brief mentions either, these sources have like paragraphs on the topic.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm gonna throw this detail out there. The two books I cited in that article say a lot more on the topic. It's just I don't have access to all the pages from google books. Also I have stumbled upon other sources on this topic, its just writing this article all by my self kinda tired me out to be honest.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a good amount of news sources on this topic as well. Just didn't put them all in yet.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it seems like I am repeating myself. It's just there are certain details I keep forgetting to mention.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Furthermore please do not remove comments after they have been replied to. It tends to be disruptive as it confuses passerby editors, rather you strike out the comment. Lastly please see WP:INDENT and indent properly, I could fix it for you if you don’t mind but it isn’t good practice to edit the comments of other editors. Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: okay thanks for that. I always keep forgetting to slash the comments out, the comments I removed weren’t useful or added anything to the discussion to be honest.
But, I’m gonna sit this discussion out right now and wait for other people to comment on this.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If or not you felt the comment you made isn’t valid isn’t my point. it is good practice to strike them out rather than remove them (especially when they have been responded to), yes you are correct to state you want to sit it out at this juncture, you have done your part, my senior colleague Praxidicae has done hers, now it is left to the community to decide. Thanks for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have received a fair amount of coverage, especially the 2015 fiasco that got them banned from the Hilton. Also one academic in "Fan Identities in the Furry Fandom" describes it as a "well-publicized event." Tewdar (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it does appear to clearly cross the threshold of WP:GNG. Crossroads -talk- 17:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as satisfying GNG. Colin M (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage in sources such as the Patten book and AV Club article are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. The fact that they were published years after the convention's demise demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AVClub article isn't much to speak of but mentions in Patten and Austin's books would help establish notability if you could provide some page numbers. Any chance of that? Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all points raised above. The specific pages from Patten's book are 186–189. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (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/RainFurrest&oldid=1062613193"