Deletion of Furry Tales

Comment: without prejudice as the article fails to establish notability per multiple, independent, reliable sources. Per Wooty above, one newspaper article is not enough to meet . This is about a production that apparently hasn't been released yet - if it eventually  gets wider coverage it can always be recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: for a lack of substantial coverage to demonstrate notability.  Popularity among the furry fandom does not equate to real-world notability, and a single mention in a local paper does not establish it either - in fact the one article that does qualify as a |reliable source indicates that this is largely of interest in connection with Anthrocon.  Perhaps it can be merged ''somewhere'', but without sources to establish notability it should not have its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There's far too much  and  here. It has sources; if one wasn't enough http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/17/anthrocon-2007-draws-thousands-to-pittsburgh-for-furry-weekend/ here's another one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: There is no agenda here. This is a debate about WP policy to establish |notability, which a single source cannot do (regardless of how reliable or independent it is). Lack of sourcing seems to be becoming more and more of an issue on WP - which can only be a good thing for the credibility of the encyclopedia. I would regard this as even more important when the source is a newspaper, because it acts to keep down the number of trivial articles that, due to coverage in the local paper, might otherwise be created. Having said that, I'm not claiming that ''Furry Tales'' counts as trivia... just that, until additional  sources turn up, it is not notable enough to have an article to itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS)

Comment: I saw the Wiki News articles on it and seems to cite various sources however I think most may be considered violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: This article pretty obviously fails to meet the guidelines under . It hasn't received significant coverage in independent sources. And in any case, unless they're going on tour, it's a current event and belongs at best in wikinews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: as bloated furcruft with no claim to notability, a whopping total of one media blurb, and a hell of a lot of |OR. I agree with 76 up there. "Notable within context" is not appropriate for an entire encyclopedia, just as my grandma's bakery might be notable within the context of my town but not to a general audience. "One article is enough for Wikipedia's standards" is not correct, multiple reliable independent sources are desperately needed. Note to closing admin: "votes" clearly being stacked by "fursecution"-paranoid furry POV-pushers. , anyone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COI)

Comment: possible  nomination. Article was good enough for a . Passes ,  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:DYK||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:V)