Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidewalk Bubblegum

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. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Bubblegum[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable comic. Only coverage is in an anthology by Ted Rall which chronicles a very large number of comics, this being but one of literally several dozen. Any other sourcing is purely nonexistant. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rall anthology is a reliable secondary source that covers the comic in more than a trivial manner. I said as much when I DEPROD'd it. Saying I did that "for no reason" is disingenuous and you really should strike that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still only one source though. I could find literally nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. That it exists and covers the subject in detail makes the objection moot. WP:GNG and WP:WHYN are clear about this. Yes, having one source is not the greatest (maybe to be expected for a stub), but basing a deletion argument off of the fact that you can only find one source is flimsy. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that's the only coverage. There is a lack of reliable sources. Coin (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires multiple secondary sources providing coverage. One single secondary source is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the 'Attitude' article meets WP:V the hurdle here is WP:GNG, I also only find that article which is just not enough. Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the consensus is moving in the direction that the single source is unacceptable, may I suggest redirecting the page to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists, the secondary anthology in which the strip features prominently as an ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:25, 4 January 2021 (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.