Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Further Confusion (2nd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Confusion

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

Article uses primary sources, and a search doesn't produce this convention as one of the first results. Fails WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCLEANUP; the sources found by Shelbystripes are sufficient. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article includes a list of multiple reliable secondary sources as references; they just aren't properly used as in-line citations. It clearly needs improvement, but notability appears to exist and is WP:LASTING. Beyond the 2005-era references mentioned in the article, but it was given in-depth international coverage in 2013, analyzed for its economic influence on Silicon Valley in 2014, given a nationwide exposé in 2015, mentioned as a driver of the San Jose economy in 2017... AfD is not cleanup, and it sounds like the nominator didn't adequately search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating. I found those stories in about 30 seconds. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just searched 'Further Confusion' and the Furcon official website came up as the first result, does in fact meet WP:GNG. The only real issue I came across after reading the article was a lack of inline citations which is easy cleanup and doesn't at all constitute deletion. Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2018 (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.