Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of furry conventions

: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 no consensus.  Sandstein  05:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[List of furry conventions]]=

:{{la|List of furry conventions}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_furry_conventions Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of furry conventions}})

Long list of what appear to be mostly non-notable conventions. Seems to simply be serving as a directory. Nothing more then name, place and date. A huge list of references but I have checked several and can not find a single RS in the bunch. Seem to all be primary sources from the convention organizers or wiki's. Many of these issues where addressed 3 years ago when the list was reviewed here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_furry_conventions/archive1]. Not sure if there is enough independent coverage of any of these to justify a list of this nature. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:Have also noticed here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_furry_conventions/archive1] where it was reviewed again a month later and I'm not sure a single suggestion was followed. Ridernyc (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::Neither the Peer Reviewers nor the Featured List reviewers questioned, in any way, whether it should remain an article. Their concerns are therefore a matter for the article talk page. Their lack of concern over its existence as an article, though, tends to indicate support for retention, not deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Most furry conventions are not sufficiently notable to have articles of their own; however, interest resulted in several stubs which went through a cycle of deletion. These stubs were ultimately merged into furry convention (per policy), and this list was soon split off. The statement "nothing more than name, place and date" is incorrect; the list includes convention themes, distinguishing features and general history. However, information is limited to what can be reliably extracted from the sources. Furry conventions and the fandom as a whole have had an increasing level of third-party media coverage, but little is reflected here; the most notable events (Anthrocon, Further Confusion, Eurofurence) have their own articles. The list could certainly be improved, but the factors highlighted in the peer review are those which would prevent it from being featured, not ones which indicate that it should be deleted. GreenReaper (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:in this case the vast majority of them are not notable. Therefore I'm not sure lumping them together is a proper solution here. Again as has been pointed out before there is a severe lack of any proper sourcing, even statements in the lead lack proper sourcing. Ridernyc (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::Notability is a bar to having an article about an individual topic. Merging is an appropriate solution to non-notable subsets of a notable topic, which in this case is furry convention. You say "proper sourcing", but I think you mean "secondary sourcing", which is a different thing. Primary sources (such as convention websites) are adequate for factual, non-disputed claims about the subject. If you see issues with the lead, please point out exactly what parts are at issue, or make edits yourself to correct them. The claims there do not seem excessive to me; those in the third paragraph which are of an interpretive nature are linked to secondary sources. However, much of it is redundant with furry convention, so could be trimmed on that basis. That is not justification for deletion of the list, which provides encyclopedic (if often brief) information about current and historic furry conventions. GreenReaper (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:::So you seem to admit that none of this notable or able to be sourced. What exactly is your inclusion criteria? There are non-notable events with no coverage that have yet to even happen in this list. This list is very very indiscrimant and as stated is acting as a directory and not as an encyclopedic list. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::For example how do you justify Fur-Eh! and Furlaxation being in the list? This is nothing more then an indiscriminate directory of Furry events. Ridernyc (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::::No, I'm saying that most of them are not notable - which is the determinant for a standalone article - and that most sources are primary, and therefore must be treated with care (we cannot use them to say that "X has the best dealer's den"). At this time, the inclusion criteria is that they are reasonably represented as a convention, which is a subset of furry events; I got to a regular monthly furmeet that has 50+ attendees, but it is not a convention. Right now, the number of furry conventions is roughly equal to the number of notable anime and science fiction conventions. As this number increases, more stringent inclusion criteria may be required; this is a discussion appropriate for the talk page. To your point: Fur-Eh! is occurring as we speak. Furlaxion is four months away, but is run by an incorporated non-profit, has a developed website, assigned guests (notable within the fandom) and a hotel contract. GreenReaper (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::Not going to get into it endlessly with you. You are wrong and what you are describing is a directory and non-encylopdic. You are making nothing more then an I LIKE IT argument. Ridernyc (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:'indiscriminate' is pretty vague, so WP:IINFO (aka WHIM) limits its list of unsuitable article types to three: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", and "Excessive listings of statistics". This article is none of the above, which is why Silver seren questioned thayora's dittoing of badmachine's IINFO rationale. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Fairly massive sourcing pretty clearly gets this past GNG. Sourcing insufficiencies of particular events are editing problems to be fixed through the normal editing process. I think it's good to have collection center articles like this to serve as a merge target for pages about individual events. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:I can create a massive pile of wiki links and primary sources for anything. Ridernyc (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep The notability requirements of a list are much lower than a normal article. Several of the conventions are notable and are linked as such and non-notable ones that are included can be very easily referenced with a secondary source. SilverserenC 04:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:That claim has been made 3 separate time over the past 4 years yet not one source has been added to the article, and it's main contributor above repeatedly admits these can not be sourced. Ridernyc (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::I am working on adding news sources right at this moment. SilverserenC 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep per Ridernyc. Lists this well-sourced that have non-notable entries should be trimmed down, per Carrite, in the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:i believe Ridernyc is the one who nominated this for deletion. :\ -badmachine 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::The misunderstanding is understandable. Ridernyc's sig appears below every Keep vote (WP:BLUDGEON). Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:* Can you please explain how it meets WP:IINFO? It doesn't fit any of the examples listed there. SilverserenC 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::*In that case, deletion would be favoured. But I would call this article advertising and isn't really notable. --♣thayora♣ 21:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::* What is it advertising? I completely agree that only conventions that have had news coverage should be included and that's how the article is now. Thus, the list has clear inclusion criteria and meets the notability requirements of lists. SilverserenC 21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

::::WP:IINFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", while the furry fandom itself may be notable enough for its own article, as well as notable topics such as Anthrocon, there is no need to list all of these non-notable events. I feel that they are in fact non-notable because the references provided are entirely (once again, speaking for content limited to this page, I understand Anthrocon has received attention from real news outlets) within the "furry-sphere" of the internet. Thus WP:COI would likely fall into place as the publishers of these references (as well as the authors of the majority of the content on this page) are partial, as well as proud of, their fandom. -badmachine 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::What do you mean "furry sphere of the internet"? I didn't realize that newspapers like The Age, The Dallas Morning News, The Dallas Observer, Burnaby News Leader, The News Tribune, the Montreal Gazette, The Hartford Advocate, and all the rest that i'm not going to list here are papers in the "furry sphere". What does that even mean? SilverserenC 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Do not delete, based on GreenReaper's sourcing rationales, Carrite's merge target rationale, Silver seren's replies to IINFO misattribution, the silence that implies consent of the two official reviews, and my replies. Do not merge to 'furry fandom'; this article was split from 'furry fandom'. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep A very good way of handling these. The deletion arguments appear to be IDONTLIKEIT. Now, I don't personally care about them myself, but I don't see that as relevant. About half those listed do not seem to have articles--but checking, I don't see that any of those without articles ever had articles deleted--so maybe they should be written. I rather doubt that all such conventions in the world are indiscriminately included--there must be a great many more, and the actual contents does not seem to be advertising. There are sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

:* I'm making sure to only include ones that either have their own article or have a reliable source significantly discussing them. This is a standard method of making lists, per the third option of WP:LSC. Rangoon above seems to disagree with having reliably and secondarily sourced, but as of yet non-notable, items on a list, even though it is a common and accepted practice of making lists. SilverserenC 02:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Note It should be noted that the article in it's current state is about 1/10th -if even that- the size of the original. Dozens of entries have been removed. There is also still no inclusion criteria with the main contributor to the article arguing that, yes everything that calls itself a Furry Convention should be listed. If two people put on costumes, call it a convention, and make a webpage it's good enough to be listed. Ridernyc (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

:* Note: The above misrepresents the talk page discussion. SilverserenC 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

:::No it actually represents the views of the creator and main contributor to the article perfectly which can be seen here in the only statement they have made in the inclusion criteria debate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_furry_conventions&diff=490849570&oldid=467061228]. This person has made this argument repeatedly over several discussion for four years. They have even made this argument above in this very debate. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

::::Considering the author hasn't replied beyond making the discussion section in the first place, it's inappropriate for you to assume that he doesn't agree with my statements on how the article should be organized. Furthermore, his opinion has literally nothing to do with the article as a subject in itself. SilverserenC 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

:Your criteria are too stringent. If you had read the lede, you would know that attendees are not required or expected to wear costumes.

:Does deciding what is a furry convention and what is not require a level of editorial discrimination? Yes. But this is precisely what editing and discussion on the talk page is for. By bringing a case to AfD without any prior action, you have attempted to circumvent this process. The application of hard-and-fast rules about media coverage - the same coverage which many furry conventions actively oppose - would result in throwing out a significant amount of content of interest to readers wishing to learn about the history of furry conventions. This is especially egregious when the notability guidelines were only ever intended to decide whether information about a topic should stand alone or be merged to another article (i.e. this one). I maintain that the level of coverage provided in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_furry_conventions&oldid=482932805#Active_events original list] (one paragraph per event, and often just one or two lines) was not excessive, and that this is the appropriate place for it. GreenReaper (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - as noted in the article's talk page, this article (as well as the other "list of conventions" articles that have been brought up here) are a good way to address smaller or less notable conventions that may not merit an article of their own but which at least meet some lesser standard of notability, as is being discussed in the article's talk page. I can see where some of those that had been listed at the time this AfD was created (it has since been edited) are too small and too lacking in independent sources to deserve inclusion. But even if the outcome of that discussion is that only those with Wikipedia articles should be listed, I still say keep. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (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.