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 delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfurrest[edit]

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

I can't find any third-party sources outside of livejournal, flickr and the like. I don't see anything suggesting that this convention meets the General Notability Guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more links, as well as information about the upcoming years event. I don't know why it would constitute getting rid of this entry when there's other furry conventions with the same if not less information on their entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacada1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New posts go to the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't cut it, also suggest that author read WP:OSE. Just because other furry conventions have short articles doesn't mean a thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I after reading the General Notability Guideline and the WP:OSE, I still don't see how the article does not meet the standards of wikipedia. I suggest then more specific examples be posted to address the issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacada1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Wikipedia articles need reliable third-party sources in order to be presumed notable. Newspaper articles, magazines, books, that sort of thing. Before nominating the article, I did a search for anything that would qualify, and I couldn't find anything. If the convention has gotten media attention, then you could find those articles and put them into the article, and that might save it. For an example of an article about a convention that meets our guidelines for inclusion, see Macworld Conference & Expo. That one has plenty of newspaper articles and the like to confirm that it is a notable event. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacada: Basically, Rainfurrest is a three-year-old event that nobody that Wikipedia considers important has written about, therefore there is no "reliable source" for the information that would be in the article. Compare this to Anthrocon which has many instances of media coverage since 2006. If you want to write something, try starting with an event that has a news article about it and draw your facts from there. Furry conventions often shun media coverage so this is a perennial problem. GreenReaper (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no sources outside of furry specific websites and a Starfox fan forum. There is no notable media coverage. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. I suspect this event will at some point be eligible for an article, given its rate of growth, but right now all I have to offer are two episodes of the podcast "Pacific Fen Spotlight". GreenReaper (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (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.