Talk:Rowrbrazzle

Since it appears the mini-fracas about deleting this article had to do with the paucity of sources about Rowrbrazzle, the question comes up: does anyone have anything that would verify Rowrbrazzle's existence in a way that makes people happier with its presence here? It doesn't strike me as something that's less significant than many of the pop culture items that are documented in Wikipedia, but its significance mostly predates the internet, making it hard to find things you can just go out and link to. (There's never been, AFAIK, a Rowrbrazzle web site, for instance, although there are contributors who have web sites that refer to it.) The "Wikifur" article is, presumably, a tertiary source, although it does its best to list its own primary and secondary sources. Is it inappropriate to at least link to the Wikifur page from this article, given that it's about as close as we're evidently gonna get to a web site "for" Rowrbrazzle? ChipotleCoyote 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A link might be viewed as OK. It is probably never going to work as a reference, as WikiFur does not require people to identify themselves, and does allow original research. The page is most likely accurate - it's been edited by a number of members of the group - but there's no authority to attribute it to. References work best when they are never changed after initial publication and are written by one person or a defined group of identifiable people who have easily-established credibility. GreenReaper 07:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Relative traffic to this article is low, but I'm keeping importance at mid due to its historical impact to the fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply