Talk:Finger paint

Seems appropriate. An ordinary word in an on-topic context. I found a reference too: [1] --Rat 23:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the on-topic assessment: plushophilia overlaps with, but is not equivalent, to furry, and I don't see a need to cover the terms--or if we do, a list rather than a number of very short articles. -- Sine 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article update #1 (April 17 2009)

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. Vote on Abstain - Spirou 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Article update #2 (November 1 2009)

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. Vote on Abstain - Spirou 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article update #3 (March 6, 2010)

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete? - Spirou 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It's benign enough, and a newcomer to the fandom might encounter the term (given the overlap that Sine pointed out between Furry and Plushophilia). I don't see that it harms anything for us to have a simple definition in context. I disagree with the single-page glossary idea though, as it complicates interwiki linking for new editors. --CodyDenton 11:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mild keep Sine has a good point about avoid 'coverage creep' or 'subject creep'. I also see your point about difficulty of inter-Wiki linking, but I have to ask if a one-line article is Wiki-like? Which is pretty much what the alternative is, and is also why my support for this is lukewarm at best. A one-line article can hardly be considered encylopaedic. Perhaps there needs to be consideration of something like the Wikipedia Dictionary, only with fur fandom-related terms? That might be a better way of dealing with this kind of thing. --GingerM ^{(Leave me a message)} 20:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article restoration (May 3, 2011)

Two "keeps", one "neutral". Removing appr tag - Spirou 01:17, 4 May 2011 (EDT)