Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furcadia (2nd nomination)

: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 Early close, speedy keep by discussion. AGF, folks. Keegantalk 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

=[[Furcadia]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furcadia}}

:{{la|Furcadia}} ([{{fullurl:Furcadia|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furcadia (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

<<Courtesy admin blanking of nomination statement as negative unsourced BLP attack content. Dlohcierekim 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)>>

— Aa45955 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: 07:39, 12 May 2009 | The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC).}}

  • Comment I disagree with the nominator, and think that they are going for a straw man argument; I find no evidence that they're pro pedophilia or anything, nor do I think they're trying to mislead people into being a "safe" site. Aren't adult sites usually plastered with warnings out the wazoo? The article makes it pretty clear that it's an adult MMO as well, and obviously it can't say what the users believe because that'd run afoul of WP:NPOV. With that in mind, though, do they really meet notability? Every freaking source is primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 04:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment that I'm a little confused as to where to leave. I have to say, I didn't see one guideline or policy brought up in that entire nomination. At a glance, the article looks okay, but if it's missing notable information that can be verified by reliable sources, add it. If the subject is non-notable, perhaps that should have been mentioned somewhere in the nomination. Even if everything the nominator said is true, I'm inclined to say, assuming the subject is notable, keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Nosleep break my slumber 04:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and Warn nominator; this is disruption to prove a point. No comment on the sources; let someone who obviously doesn't have a bone to pick against the thing nominate it or even fix it. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Changing to Speedy Close AfD; nominator seems to be doing everything in his/her power to scare people just coming upon this nomination. There is zero doubt in my mind that this is a bad-faith nomination. Everything I said about WP:SOFIXIT above still stands. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep as no guideline or policy rationale given for deletion. I also agree with warning the nominator regarding a single-purpose account used for edit warring as evidenced by the related talk pages. Also, User:Kotra is to be commended for patience and explaining things and remaining civil to the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

::Incidentally, I don't see anything in those little pics that a child with a pet dog or cat or other mammal doesn't see everyday, except that the animals walk on two legs not four which is common on cartoons like Bugs Bunny and the ones with Tweety Bird. But maybe I'm just not looking hard enough. Drawn Some (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

: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.