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 per new sources added. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 01:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FurAffinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NWEB. This article cites the subject's website and other self-published sources so there are essentially no references. I couldn't find any on a BEFORE search. This was deleted previously and never should have been re-created. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as what does seem to be (or to have been) the most prominent website for this subculture.

I was able to find sources easily, although the more substantive ones tend to be doctoral theses rather than news articles. The site generated a bit of press due to a cybersecurity incident, and considerable mainstream press when it banned AI-generated art in 2022. It gets a lot of short mentions in the press, which I acknowledge don't count for much.

I've put some citations into the article, perhaps someone with greater interest will be able to search out better cites. Oblivy (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep: Supporting the reasons with that user above. Along adding my case on that nearly all furries (even myself) use this the most popular furry-based art-based website to express ourselves. As well the previous (and successful) deletion of this page happened, ~17-18 years ago, when the art website is clearly then-creation. So, let other users (both furries and non-furries, including possibly me) to find news articles that are reliable in primary and secondary levels. Despite the several flaws in that website. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hello, I'm the creator of the article.

First off, I 100% understand why the article hasn't existed in nearly my entire lifetime because of the shocking lack of sources for a site so well-known. However, I genuinely want this up due to the fact that:

1. This is, whether some people like it or not, still the largest used furry-centric site as of 2023. It has long been a staple of the furry community and is even recognized by many non-furs (again, for both good and bad unfortunately).

2. As the furry fandom becomes more... "mainstream"(?), especially since the start of the decade, it is inevitable that there will be at least some more pages on furry-related and adjacent stuff here. So I simply thought "why not" for this.

Again, I apologize for the lack of sources. While I do believe that posts from the sites own management do count as reliable sources, at least for events that happened, I do agree that that might not be enough for this. However, despite that, I hope that people build on the article and it remains up.

- CanYouNotMyDude Ye9CYNMD (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely mainly on secondary sources, especially those subject to fact-checking (e.g., publications with editorial staff, or peer reviewed articles). The site's own words, and those of people connected to it, may be OK for some factual matters or for quotes about their mindset and intentions, but tend to be disregarded when looking at notability. We want to see that others regard the article subject as something worth talking about.

Simply hoping other people will find sources is not a strong strategy - you need to go look (as I did, and I'm not even tangentially interested in this subculture). Oblivy (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that additions to the article since nomination can be assessed to see if they provide enough SIGCOV to establish notability. This discussion really isn't about the subject matter but whether adequate independent, secondary sources can be located over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate, Starblind, Tevildo, and Nihonjoe: from the prior deletion discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a deletion comment made 17 years ago is of any pertinence or relevance here. No opinion. Fish+Karate 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources (Vice, Newsweek) seem to be adequate. Tevildo (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as demonstrated to be covered by two or more quality sources.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2023 (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.