Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozy and Millie

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 keep. No arguments to delete besides nominator. I encourage editors to keep in mind our guidelines about discussion. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozy and Millie[edit]

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

Okay, let's look at the sources. About 95% of them are primary, and the other 5% are interviews with the cartoonist, coverage from the unreliable Comixtalk, or primary sources to show that it won a questionable award. Is a Web Cartoonist's Choice award really enough to save it from the fire if there are absolutely no secondary sources anywhere to so much as verify one iota of info in this article? I highly, highly doubt it. And I don't wanna hear "but but but it won a Web Cartoonists Choice Award and/or is on Keenspot; IT HAS TO BE NOTABLE BY THAT ALONE!" Not without good sources, it ain't. Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Won an Ursa Major Award in 2002, and then again twice running in 2006 and 2007. Notable by that alone. GreenReaper (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per as above. Also, as it is a GA, I think it is example of good Wikipedia work. ISD (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won one WCCA, three UMAs, was on Keenspot when this still meant something, was written by an (apparently) notable artist, ran for the long time period of ten years and had up to 50,000 visitors a day, has been named as a major influence by several other webcartoonists, various articles on other (maybe not notable, but adequately reliable) websites about it exist, books were published by a real publisher. When all of this is considered this webcomic is notable. --84.57.185.23 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate reasons given above. Also, this is the primary work of David/Dana Simpson, who also has a wikipedia page. Wmspringer (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and I Drew This into Dana Simpson. Each of these articles lacks significant coverage by reliable sources, but there may be enough in the three articles to make one OK article. None of the ideas expressed above (such as Keenspot, Web Cartoonists Choice Awards, or Ursa Major Awards) are of any great notability themselves, let alone indicators of any sort of notability for this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Ridiculous~~. Among the most notable of webcomics. If Ozy and Millie isn't notable enough for an article, no webcomic except for User Friendly, Penny Arcade, and PvP would be notable enough for an article. Powers ^T 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ridiculous~~ argument. You forgot Erfworld, Garfield Minus Garfield, Girl Genius, Eric Monster Millikin, Axe Cop, xkcd, Megatokyo, The Perry Bible Fellowship and many, many other webcomics that are far more notable than this one. Our coverage of webcomics is in no danger of being reduced to anything close to only three articles if we were to delete this. This isn't even close to "among the most notable of webcomics." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the rhetoric. Calling others' arguments "ridiculous" is not conducive to a civil discussion. You've done this twice here, now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't modify my comments, either. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd appreciate some help in your quest to protect sensitive people from being exposed to the word "ridiculous." Starblueheather (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A webcomic doesn't have to be "close to among the most notable of webcomics" in order to be here; rather, it needs to at least barely qualify under the appropriate notability guidelines, meaning it has to be covered in at least two independent reliable sources, or have won at least one well-known and independent award, or be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. As long as it meets any one of those criteria, it meets the notability requirements. The Ursa Major Awards are considered a major award in their area, and have been awarded for nearly ten years. The award is independent of the creators of this webcomic, and it is well known within that genre, so this webcomic meets the minimun requirements for notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ridiculous~~ argument. This award doesn't even indicate notability in the furry community, let alone to a general audience. By your reasoning, the Ursa Major Award-winning "Front cover of Fur Visions, Issue 20" would be notable. Which it's not. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, because covers of magazines by themselves are very rarely, if ever, independently notable. That argument is fallacious at its core. The magazine, however, would gain notability for having an award-winning cover, and would therefore qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a single illustration is not generally notable (although winning the award might still be considered a notable achievement for the artist). However, "Best Comic Strip" is hotly-contested. The comic was also the first to be selected as WikiFur's featured comic. Fred Patten called Ozy and Millie "one of the top anthropomorphic cartoon strips on the Internet." Its retirement was the subject of a secondary news article.

O&M is not the world's most important comic. However, it's been notable within furry fandom for the past decade. GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, what, are you trying to convince me to change my "merge" comment to "delete"? These sources are horrible. You are arguing that this is "notable within furry fandom" and these "Awards are considered a major award in their area [and] well known within that genre". That argument is fallacious at its core. As much as I wish we were, we're not making a furry fandom encyclopedia here. And GreenReaper is seriously suggesting we keep this based on an article Green Reaper wrote for WikiFur News? That is beyond ridiculous. Starblueheather (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said the Ursa Major award for Best Comic failed to indicate notability within furry fandom, and argued that - by extension - it could not indicate general notability. I provided evidence that its decision was in line with other indications of notability within furry fandom. As part of that, I felt a previously-written news article about the comic's retirement that mentioned the Ursa Majors might both confirm the Awards' decision about its notability and indicate that the Award itself had weight within furry fandom.

Part of the job of experts is to provide perspective on what may indicate notability within a topic area. I think you are wrong to discard the Awards. They have their flaws, and their critics (myself included), but they generally do their job. If nothing else, as a popular award, if they had made a bad decision in 2006, the public outcry would have precluded Ozy and Millie's return in 2007. GreenReaper (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, if these awards conferred notability, then winning one would result in coverage by reputable sources. Your pointing out that the best sources for this "award-winner" is trivial stuff like a brief article you wrote yourself on another wiki, then you are really weakening your case and making me consider changing my comment to "delete." Starblueheather (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (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.