Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yiff

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 Keep (17/4). Shreshth91 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yiff[edit]

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrewler (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course! This is a very popular word which deserves to be in an open encyclopedia. --Ozone Griffox 01:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of Google hits for "yiff furry". They have a petition for putting the word into the OED too. A weird practice, but deserves coverage. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as Furries give me a rash, I can't deny the currency this particular phrase has, particularly on the Internet. As a word, it's been around for at least 10 years. They even used it on an episode of C.S.I.. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable outside of "Furry culture". At the least, this should be merged with the Furry article. -Skrewler 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "furry culture" is certainly notable enough for there to be articles about major concepts from it. The article is very detailed and not particularly mergable without throwing most of it away, IMO. Bryan 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, it's weird, but it's well-known weirdness. --Zetawoof 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable, comprehensive, and NPOV. Durova 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's as notable as bestiality... -- Grev -- Talk 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Skirting the boundaries of dicdef. - Andre Engels 08:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Debates" section pushes it past dic def status for me, but only a little. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Syrthiss 15:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be most notable aspect within furry fandom... Unfortunately. Ekevu (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just a word, but well-written dicdef with some subcultural value. Ashibaka (tock) 18:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would agree many other furry fandom slang words aren't worthy of articles, but this thing is a really common thing. Ahem hem hem. --Wwwwolf 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Femmina 01:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As you can see, the majority of the people voting Keep are furry. This is not-notable outside of furry culture, and has no place in a legitimate encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.120.124 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 November 2005 (user's first edit)
    Funny, at least from user pages and contributions it looks like perhaps 2 or 3 of the above votes are people associated in some way with Furries. 3/14 isn't a majority. :) --Syrthiss 03:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The preponderance of stupid wannabe Japanese names seems to indicate to the contrary. --66.92.130.57 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merge with and redirect to furry or the like 65.34.232.136 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it is really being petitioned for the OED, that suggests that it is just a dicdef, or not much more than a dicdef. Should be merged with furry fandom article, at least. --TonySinclair 02:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable to warrant its own article. Thunderbrand 13:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of furry culture, but most people dont know what it is so a article is usefull. the size of the article is enough to keep it.--85.146.24.65 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly informative, about a common enough concept. Dave 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furry sex is a common enough concept? LOL Skrewler 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I run in strange circles, but hardly a day goes by when I don't hear somebody talking about what horrible people furries are and — this actually happens — how disgusting yiffing is. Dave 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You run in strange circles. (Somebody had to say it!) --Zetawoof 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're telling this guy he runs in strange circles, and yet you publicly admit on the internet to being a "male zoo of dogs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.19 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I've known people on (regular) art boards to post asking what the word meant, as they had heard of the term, but had no clue what it meant. It would be nice if people could look this up so it doesn't keep getting asked. (Although, The question was usually followed with a "never mind. Someone emailed me the answer in private" posting.) And I can see people unfamiliar with such things becoming confused when someone posts "yiff art in the past," or similar, and having no idea what they're talking about. At the very least, it should redirect to the furry page, so these people can get their questions answered. (And isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? To provide unbiased factual information? This information is factual, and is looked up by many people. It's not our place to judge. We have articles on Nazism and Nuclear weapons. Why not yiff?) Sim 01:14, 15 November 2005 (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/Yiff&oldid=1138712604"