Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furcadia

Add links
Source: 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furcadia

Furcadia (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article does not assert notability. Fails WP:WEB and notability/verifiability guidelines. Anomo 04:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Furcadia is one of the furry community's largest well, community online. There are 2500 to 4000 members online at one given time (There are 4600 online right now). It has also been around since 1996. It's not as if Furcadia is relatively recent, or even rarely known. I'll help contribute to make the article better, but its more helpful if people HELP and add stuff to the article, than suggest deletion. Disinclination 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not based on number of people on the site, or length of time existing. It's based on the presence of multiple reliable secondary sources, which simply do not exist here. -Amarkov babble 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why don't you, or other people who wish to delete this article help out instead of voting it to be deleted? Disinclination 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • *wham* *wham* *wham* Now that I've finished banging my head on the desk...
      • The issue is not that the article should be rewritten. The issue is that the subject itself is not notable. I'm beginning to get really annoyed by people who seem to think that articles should never be deleted, just rewritten. -Amarkov babble 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, as I am reading the several links given about why this article should be deleted, how it is -not- notiable. Yes, there are several articles about furry and whatnot. And Furcadia is a massive community, not just a website. It is stated under history, and other sections about what makes Furcadia unique and notiable, as far as I can understand. Disinclination 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A furry website among many. No verification that this one's particularly notable. Fan-1967 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I'm amazed at that the assertion that this is non-notable. This is not a website. It's an MMO that's been running for the last nine years, and which has over 3,000 players online at this very moment. Finalist for the 9th IGDA awards, see associated coverage at GameSpy. Unrelated interview at GameDev.net. Its predecessor DragonSpires was mentioned in Wired magazine. Google results: about 232,000. GreenReaper 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always heard it wasn't good that basically it had no gameplay aspect at all. Then I looked and saw it had no media references. Greenreaper, those references of awards and interviews should have been in the article. Anomo 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Gameplay is provided by scripts that execute on objects within the world. I guess the people who you heard that from never went to go and play in one of those areas, or just didn't like them. Like Second Life, it is not exactly a game so much as an online interaction space. People do tend to roleplay there, there's a system called Furre! based on the Pocket Universe RPG rules, and the popular webcomic Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures is based on it. And yes, they should have been in the article, and they weren't, but they can be now. GreenReaper 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An awful lot of furry related articles seemed to be getting nominated today. Robovski 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second the comment At any given time there are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could reasonably be reviewed for deletion and it does look highly suspect when several of them from a related subject area get nominated at about the same time, at least when the articles in question have existed for many months (in some cases over a year) and were developed and maintained independently of one another. Mwalimu59 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popculturecruft. An MMO is not inherently notable, and very well may be the opposite. Not encyclopedia content. --Charlene 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there appear to be no non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, so we cannot verify the neutrality of the article. Also appears to fail WP:WEB. Guy 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long-running MMO, has been covered per GreenReaper. Needs cleanup, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Perfectly verifiable. Shimeru 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedia content. Biased sources. The only people that would look it up on Wikipedia are the players themselves because its userbase is so minor. Karozoa 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm seeing plenty of reliable sources. Richard A. Bartle's book "Designing Virtual Worlds" (ISBN 0131018167) cites it as being among the first graphical worlds to allow player-created construction. Jeannie Novak's "Game Development Essentials: An Introduction" (ISBN 1401862713) shows its community-building features. It even gets a current Google News hit, although that doesn't look promising. I know it's had some magazine coverage as well, being one of the first large graphical free MMORPGs. Definitely notable, definitely verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is one of the remaining MMOs, I agree with Starblind, its verifiable and notable. If this has been nominated for deletion, why not its developer and its chairperson get sent for AFD as well? --Terence Ong (C | R) 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has received media attenttion, and it seems to have historical value for innovations in gaming. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Don't know much about furries, but I've heard of it, and it appears to have some significance in this minority community. WMMartin 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreenReaper. This is verifiable and clearly a significant online community, so there appears to be no compelling reason for deletion. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, furcruft. Lankiveil 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is notable. There is much discussion in the tech world about getting women into designing and gaming. Over half of Furcadia's players are women. I'll look for some stuff to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep actually due to it's narrow targetted audience. Activity seems to be comparable to Habbo, if the top commenter is right with his/her numbers. I would know because I'm closing the pools as we speak. I think most of Wikipedia's furry-related articles need to go, but not this one. Miltopia 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty sure this is notable, I've seen it talked about in quite a few places over the web. The Kinslayer 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Starblind's sources. Again, the criterion is verifiability, not whether the article currently has sources. — brighterorange (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Starblind. Also, the nominator doesn't make any comments why the user feels it isn't notable. I think Starblind made the best effort to estabilish notability. --Pinkkeith 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this game has received media and book coverage. I'm not a player and I'd heard of it. It seems notable enough to me, though could perhaps do with some of those references being added to the article. Polenth 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, has anyone else who has voted "Delete" here had their user page "modified"? Really mature, furries. Lankiveil 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Nom fails to assert valid reason for deletion. Also keep per Starblind's excellent arguments. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete. WP:WEB doesn't apply to this as Furcadia isn't a website. Besides, it's a mildly popular MMO with thousands of users logged on at any given time. Though I do think this article goes into unnecessary detail which would serve a much better purpose at WikiFur. --Donbert 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back and looking at WP:WEB, I realized it applies to "web-specific content," so it does indeed apply to Furcadia. --Donbert 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. Debatable whether this is covered under WP:WEB. Note online-games/virtual worlds aren't mentioned as an example, 2. Notability and historical significance has been confirmed by the list of articles/websites/etc. quoted by GreenReaper and Starblind, 3. even if it is considered to be covered under WP:WEB, point 2 verifies its notability. Regardless on what people's views are on "furries", Furcadia is notable and hence the original recommendation to delete, is moot. --Rambutaan 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would WP:WEB apply to a MMOG that's not web-based? Because it has a website? It seems to me that the people who are citing WP:WEB might not know that Furcadia exists as a standalone client, not on the web. Notability? 60,000+ active players, being one of the early pioneers of the MMOSG genre, lasting 9+ years with no interruption and continuing to grow (no small feat for a video game), and even being a finalist for an award (albiet a minor one) combine to make it seem pretty notable, don't you think? As for verifiability, 3 or 4 good sources and a 3+ more okay sources is quite a bit better than most video game articles. If you think this article isn't well sourced, take a look here. Afd a few dozen video game articles with much fewer sources if it makes you feel good. ...Or, you could actually improve Wikipedia by helping to make articles better. (strike that, evidently Inclusionism is taboo) -kotra 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do we really need a page for every minor bit of "furry culture"? A few offhand mentions in a couple of books, no major awards to speak of, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, and a very loyal, but very small fanbase. Doesn't add up to notability to me. MichelleG 09:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per the above commenters. Is there a discrimination taking place against these people? It seems like it. Yamaguchi先生 22:39, 14 November 2006
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/Furcadia&oldid=1142198214"