Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furry love

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 of the debate was delete, perspectives from sockpuppets (both apparent and admitted) nonwithstanding. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:01, Dec. 25, 2005

[edit] Furry love

The author objected to speedy, so I'm going to slow route. This article has no context with which to explain itself, and is borderline gibberish. After reading it, all I know is that "furry love" appears over 31,000 times in google - I still don't know what furry love is. Since the page seems to have a reason to keep built into its body (always a suspicious move), I'll simply say that the google test isn't everything. After all, "make a left turn" appears www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22make+a+left+turn%22&btnG=Google+Search 272,000 times in google - it doesn't get a wikipedia entry either. אריאל יהודה 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep article WpediaIsNotPaper 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (note: author of article)
• Delete; inane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_harrison Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A stub will not be a fully fleshed out article. It might be better to give the thing a chance rather than moving it in haste. Also I notice the person who started this VFD does nothing but try to get articles deleted all day. JeremyJX 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Furry fandom. It's one of the larger geek fandoms and has a established following with quite a few annual conventions. There's a substantial body of art devoted to it including some artists from respected animation studios (who contribute under pseudonym given the family friendly nature of their day jobs). I'm not sure this subissue deserves its own article, but the surrounding phenomenon is encyclopedic. Durova 21:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As I look into this more, the distinction between furry love and yiff blurs. A substantial number of Google hits refer either to pets or to fetish handcuffs. The text here isn't exactly gibberish: furry fans typically identify with one particular animal. So the question about finding a love interest from the same "species" has some potential relevance within the subculture. I haven't found an outside source that verifies the claim. Durova 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep By the VFDer's logic, since Left Turn, Left Turn (USA), and Left Turn (US) are all articles, then this one should stay, too. Hardvice 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all - my point was that the google test isn't everything (which is clearly true). This page has made no claims to notability other than the fact the it appears in google. At this point the page is very little more than Gibberish. --אריאל יהודה 22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This topic is completely and utterly made up, as opposed to the legitimate wider furry fandom topic. Including copyrighted graphical porn images (which should be speedily deleted, IMHO) on the page is certainly not acceptable. --Che Fox 22:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardvice has removed the links to the offensive (and, I'm pretty sure, not GFDL) (actually, uploaded by the original artist) image, but it's still available at Image:OzoneMaximSFXNG.jpg. The page is still bizarre and doesn't cover any phenomenon I've ever heard of. --Che Fox 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Those were from the yiff article and have been there for quite some time. If you want to look, there's two more you haven't seen. Hardvice 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I take back the not GFDL comment. Yiff almost certainly needs to be closer to Pornography in terms of how hard-core the images are. I don't think it's anywhere near the standards set by Wikipedia:Profanity, but that's a totally separate issue. --Che Fox 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet Alert: Look at the first contribution dates for Special:Contributions/Hardvice and Special:Contributions/JeremyJX. (Same date -- 16 July 2005). They've made similar contributions and have similar ranges of dates of activity (16 July, 27 August - 2 September, then nothing until today, 14 December). It's quite possible they're the same user. --Che Fox 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I take offense to that. I'm nowhere near as ugly as him. I also checked your contributions in found a sockpuppet of your's voting here Gentaur. JeremyJX 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your findings here for everyone to see. I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath. --Che Fox 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only thing Che Fox and I have in common is we seem to be reading this one page at the same time and being attacked for having the same opinion about it. Gentaur 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. -Willmcw 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to furry fandom. After comments from furry fandom people, change my vote to delete, basically as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - ifonly because +ve article on furries, rather than attack text. Applying "Assume Good Faith" --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article seems like fantasizing to me, and not NPOV. I agree with Che Fox. It should also be removed from the Furry disambiguous page. --Gentaur 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Which article would it be merged into? Yiff is too sexual. Furry fandom wants this in separate articles. Furry lifestyler denies that people couple together from liking fursuits. More importantly, will any sources cited remain? I know that in those articles, mad editors randomly delete external links to reduce the number without regard for needed citations. WpediaIsNotPaper 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think it should be merged into oblivion. :) Being a furry fan and having been involved with furry lifestyle for a few years, the only time I ever seen the term "furry love" was furrylove.ytmnd.com/ here. --Ekevu (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not only does this article not make much sense the way it's written, as a member of the furry community I haven't really heard of any special concept of "furry love" (rather than regular love between two people). It doesn't belong even merged with another article. --Neesha

• Merge or delete 200.255.137.161 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC) It's not like there's a massive subsection of the fandom directed to this, like in shounen ai or shoujo ai -- at least, not in a evident enough scale.

And when I go check on it, not even them have their own articals. Merge with Yiff or Furry Fandom. 200.255.137.161 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, and, as currently written, it's all original research. Note that the Google Test actually fails, as the hits for "furry love" are almost all parts of larger noun phrases describing housepets.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with furry fandom. Non-notable. It looks like some sort of evangelization, it kind of hurts to read that as being encyclopedia material. And, well, whatever could actually fit here would probably fit better either in furry fandom or in love. --Ekevu (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very STRONG DELETE. I tried to see sense in that article, but I can't find any. The more I read that article the more it looks like vandalism to me. Ekevu (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article makes absolutely no sense, even within the context of the furry fandom at large. --Vandringar 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please Keep or Merge. It is a behavioral phenomena with relevance that requires more research.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.206.50 (talk • contribs).

It might be, but this isn't sufficient reason to keep. Wikipedia:No original research. - Ekevu (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment notvote :: it seems, reading what's being said above, that the agenda here is a systematic denial that "love" has any place in furry relationships. If this is a behavioural phenomenon, ought it not to be recorded, even if as a stub, rather than swept under the carpet, as the "Is this pornography?" lobby appear to posit --SockpuppetSamuelson 13:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. Nobody's arguing that love has no place in furry relationships. It's just that there is no difference between furry love, non-furry love, gay love, straight love, young love, or old love. It's all love. This article has no place on Wikipedia. --Che Fox 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This article seems to be an attempt to counteract the stereotype of furry as as sexual fetish. While it's well-meant, the concept of "furry love" is, at its core, exactly the same as Romantic love or Soulmate. Simply putting this type of love in the context of furries is not notable, and is comparable to other useless terms like "Comic book fan love" or "Vegetarian love." --kotra 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what kotra said. Thue | talk 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

.... lemme try that again.... I posted an answer to this at the Talk Page, since I think this discussion is more appropriate there. Kobayen

I agree. (moved the rest of this discussion to the talk page) --kotra 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wtf. - FrancisTyers 19:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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.