Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConFuzzled

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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ConFuzzled

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

I cannot find any reliable, independent sources about this convention and none are given in the article. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and the general notability guideline" states that a to have a stand alone article a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Without third party sources it will not be possible to write a high quality, neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article on the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about this convention in reliable sources to establish ntoability -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly formatted, no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved since this AfD began. -- Soir (say hi) 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. ConFuzzled is a small event which has to date only attracted brief news articles in fandom-specific news sources – and a sidebar mention (p3) in a feature in Sugar. While not primary sources, these contain little more than attendance figures, location and a summary of events and guests; insufficient material for a full article. The event is appropriately covered in List of furry conventions, for now. GreenReaper (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Flayrah is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy but all the articles that you link to above that they host are taken directly from WikiFur News an open to edit wiki. Looking at the Wiki articles themselves all the information is taken from primary sources such as the official website and unreliable sources such as forums. Guest9999 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's what secondary sources do: draw from primary sources that they have evaluated for reliability. Unlike Wikipedia editors, they have the ability to do so - and I trust both more than Sugar, given that that they made up some of their quotes. Print isn't always the gold standard. But in this particular case neither is a useful source to base an article on, because they just don't contain sufficient information about the topic. GreenReaper (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance the secondary source (WikiFur News) is an open wiki like Wikipedia - anyone can edit it without evaluating the reliability of their sources. If a website published a word for word reprint of a Wikipedia article it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur News articles had higher levels of scrutiny and were reviewed before publication, similar to Wikinews. It was actually one up on Wikinews with respect to its use of inline citations. You're welcome to review the archives for yourself (click "Read more" for full details and citations). ConFuzzled's relatively brief coverage compared to articles WikiFur News editors contributed to Wikinews for Further Confusion and Anthrocon might indicate its perceived importance. GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that WikiFur News is has dedicated editors who are capable of producing high quality content. So does Wikipedia but even the best featured article would not be considered a reliable source. WikiNews is also a wiki that anyone can contribute to and is also not a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a third-party primary source outside its interest group ([1]), several unaffiliated secondary sources within (WikiFur News/Flayrah, as per GreenReaper; also Furtean Times [2]), and some natural WP:SELFPUB if any is needed [3]. Hardly a mainstream press selection, but certainly enough for an article in the area of furry conventions outside the US. Compare with RBW UK. As far as general notability (WP:GNG) is concerned, secondary sources are enough; even preferred. Additionally, verifiability is article content policy, rather than a single basis for deletion. Improvement would be nice, though - but then no Wikipedia article is a final draft. -- Soir (say hi) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again WikiFur News is an open to edit wiki. It should not be considered a reliable source. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, the article in the Manchester Confidential - if that can be considered a reliable source - does not even mention the name "ConFuzzled" and heavily quotes a Wikipedia article. The Furtean Times is a former fanzine and current open to edit fan network - again unlikely to reliable, even if the link you provided gave any information about the convention which it doesn't. Guest9999 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up, Wikipedia articles are not usable due to their encyclopedic (tertiary source) and self-referential nature. Flayrah is not Wikipedia, giving news as a secondary source with appropriate editorial oversight. Wikis are not per WP:RS, but a Flayrah article that began on WikiFur News is not necessarily unreliable just because of where it began. As for the Furtean Times link, the entire issue is focused on ConFuzzled with specific articles like so: [4] [5]. (Here, opinion comes with reported facts; dates, events, attendance figures are noted and can likely be corroborated by other sources. There is scope to write about critical reception that year, from in and out of furry interest.) Indeed, furry news and events are niche, but Wikipedia is not paper and quite free to accommodate. Again, cleanup and improve to accompany RBW UK as informative, with contextual sources. -- Soir (say hi) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the further links to the Furtean Times, however it still advertises itself as "an open to edit fan network" and I cannot find anything to suggest it has the reputation for fact checking and accuracy that would make it a reliable source. The same could be said of Flayrah which seems to effectively be a personal website. I don't think the status of RBW UK is really relevant to this discussion - it is a different article for a different event - but for what it's worth the current article only gives an open wiki (WikiFur) and a blog post (LiveJournal) as sources. Guest9999 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Furtean Times links show an editorial issue, not freely editable. Flayrah is a news site, not a personal web page, and has furry interest news articles on it [6] - again, it is not mainstream press, nor does it require to be. RBW UK is a similar event in the same interest group, with a similar article and Wikiproject Furry notice, and a year of silent consensus. Since this AfD, the article has received improvement updates already, and it is still quite new; before-AfD guidelines reinforce my suggestion to tag and fix. Let the editing process work. -- Soir (say hi) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment was a mischaracterisation, what I meant by "seems to be effectively a personal website" was that most of the content (around 90% of the last 200 posts based on a quick look) is contributed by one person who also runs the site. The latter being based on information from an unreliable source. Sources do not have to be mainstream but they do have to meet standards of reliability in order to verify information within an article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are "third-party, published ... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The dispute is in this last statement; as an editor I would consider Flayrah to have such a reputation within its interest group, and naturally "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context", as per WP:SOURCES. I agree, there is certainly room for more reliable sources to enrich the article content, but unless the ConFuzzled article makes exceptional claims requiring the highest quality sources to substantiate, it still fulfills the intent of policy in respect of the content there is. -- Soir (say hi) 19:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In looking at the Flayrah postings, they are attributed to GreenReaper. Is this the same GreenReaper as the Wikipedia editor in this discussion? -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's me. I can't claim authorship of all WikiFur News articles (which were imported into Flayrah under CC-BY-SA), but in this case they are largely my work as well.

This is why I feel secure in saying the particular news posts I linked do not justify inclusion of ConFuzzled in Wikipedia. They contain only bare details obtained mainly from official sources, as compared to in-person coverage of events like Anthrocon. Furtean Times may not be much better for Wikipedia's purposes, but at least they went there. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not by themselves. But there are a range of sources of varying kinds, and the article is new and has potential. I think it's a fair start. ;) -- Soir (say hi) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the con grows and attracts more coverage then perhaps an article would be jsutifiable, but I just don't see it based on the sources put forth so far. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand my by delete !vote especially after seeing GreenReaper's breakdown of the sources. Clearly the few sources added aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another furry convention that isn't notable outside of it's specific fandom. As mentioned above, there are no reliable sources. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant reliable third-party coverage of this event is provided anywhere. Acebulf (talk) 20:37, 27 March 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.