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. Dakota 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ursa Major Awards (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Let's face it, this award is never going to be televised on prime time TV. To compare it with the Hugo Awards is absurd. I see no evidence that this is of any importance at all, in fact, and the article certainly presents none such. Guy 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable fancruft awards. --Charlene 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem sufficiently noteworthy. Perhaps in the future. Shimeru 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to a furry wiki if it's not already there, otherwise Delete. Xtifr _tälk 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete with comment: According to Wikipedia policy, external wikis may not be used as sources. Transwiki-ing articles involves moving articles across Wikimiedia's wikis, not every wiki throughout the entire internet. Wikis with poor oversight are not as reliable as Wikipedia. Any articles which have been copied from WikiFur need to be deleted and\or re-written. Robocracy 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a difference between using an article as a reference and using it as a source of text. I copied it here because it was specifically requested by someone (not even a regular member of WikiFur - they just popped up one day) and because as far as I could see, everything in there could be confirmed as accurate from the website itself. I also got separate permission to use the image on Wikipedia, though technically as a logo I do not think it was not required. The article has had a good deal of editing from our administrators who are knowledgeable in the works it covers, and was even checked by a member of the awards committee. I'm not sure exactly how much more oversight it could have been given from any site. GreenReaper 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using it as a source of text just means you're using it as a reference for the entire article. External wikis are not reliable for either article sources or for entire articles. Robocracy 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the reference for the entire article is the awards website. That's why it's there under "References". Whether this is sufficient for Wikipedia is the question. GreenReaper 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a primary source. It's still a valid source for raw information, but not a reliable source for more speculative information, such as the statement about it being the equivalent of the Hugo Awards. It would be sufficient to keep a pared-down version of the article, if the award could be shown to have some noteworthiness. WP:WEB or WP:BK would be the guidelines I'd look at first -- neither of them is perfect for this, but they give an idea. If any of the books that have received the award (or reviews of those books) make mention of the award, as they often do with the Hugo and other major literary awards, then I think that would be sufficient to keep and cleanup the article. Shimeru 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately I don't have copies of most of the works to see (still assembling my anthropomorphic library). There is one that I know I have that probably mentions it, but it is written by the chairman of the committee. Apparently SFSite news covered its nomination list (and they mention the Hugos in a similar fashion further down to the left). It appears to have been noted (briefly) as an event on scifi.com. The wording in the article is somewhat ambiguous - it is not certainly not "equivalent" in general popularity to the Hugo awards, because furry fandom is smaller than sci-fi fandom and the award is far younger, but it is equivalent in style. Like the Hugo, both nominees and winners are chosen by the fans. Interesting reading: some responses to criticism (the criticism itself is unfortunately not available), including a response by the chair of the awards committee. GreenReaper 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikification can be performed between any two wikis, Wikimedia Foundation or otherwise, as long as their copyright licences are mutually compatible. However, there are, deliberately, no maintained transwiki queues for any wikis other than Wikimedia Foundation wikis and a few GFDL gaming wikis. There is no formal system of third party volunteers who will transwiki to other wikis, although editors such as me and a few others will sometimes handle specific articles upon request. So if one wants an article transwikified to WikiFur, one must do all of the necessary work onesself, and one should be aware that by expressing that opinion at AFD one is implicitly volunteering to do all of that work onesself. Uncle G 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That said this article needs improvement. But I don't think being an award for a minor niche is reason enough to delete the article, that's a reason to have the article. Few (in the United States anyway) needs to come to come to wikipedia to find out what the Emmy awards are (the history and trivia perhaps, but not the basic knowledge of what they are). By the same token few are going to know what the Ursa Major awards are if they hear about them. And they might well hear about them, the Fred Patton book mentioned in the article has been reprinted and is currently available in mainstream bookstores (Now titled Furry! The Best Anthropomorphic Fiction Ever!). --Lilfluff 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But you see, there aren't any third-party reliable sources covering this (unlike some other non-primetime TV awards, such as the Scotiabank Giller Prize, the National Book Award, and the Eisner Awards.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote low profile awards. ColourBurst 07:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete furcruft. Lankiveil 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I hate furries.--Perceive 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - ideally, along with all the other furry spam. Pete Fenelon 01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (but tone it down a little bit; I doubt it's quite at the Hugo's level of prestige) - I'm a bit stunned by all this vitriol. It's verifiable and fairly well organized as is, so its presence does absolutely no harm to anyone (except maybe psychically?); it also seems fairly well known in this community. Besides, it was awarded by a ConFurence that has its own article, with its own verifiable information, which no one has ever even proposed deleting! --zenohockey 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being well known in a certain community isn't really enough, if it can't be verified through independent sources. Can you point to any media coverage or similar notice? If none exists, then the concern is valid. Shimeru 04:52, 13 November 2006 (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.