Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam and Fuzzy (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. czar 04:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Fuzzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source which is a local newspaper from the author's hometown. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Tagged for notability 2+ years. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Destructoid and Polygon are brief passing mentions, Bleeding Cool even less so; neither are even worth adding to the article. I did find a useful mention from the Rome News-Tribune from 2005. The The Martlet piece is non-trivial. There was also an article in a journal article Sam and Fuzzy (viewable on ProQuest), and it's also non-trivial. To sum up, a student newspaper, a journal article, and a newspaper article. Quoted from WP:RSSM: A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable. I would say that Sam and Fuzzy is not a notable web cartoon based on my analysis of coverage. SWinxy (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually makes me change my !vote to a Keep. The brief mentions in popular online magazines show wider interest, while the newspaper articles go more in-depth. I completely missed the Martlet article at first. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had hopes for the academic piece, but it's just uses the story as an example in this short (if academic) essay. Not SIGCOV. The Martlet piece is, let's face it, a student media blog level type of notice. I am not impressed. The RNT I can't access properly and it looks like the epitome of local, niche media. Even if we cobble all of this together I think we fall too short of notability. This is IMHO not the case of borderline, but still too little. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 30 July 2022 (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.