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


 * 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)

Sam and Fuzzy
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral – A few publications do mention Sam and Fuzzy as though it were a familiar title. Destructoid, Bleeding Cool, Polygon... None of these are particularly useful to write an article with, though. I'm really on the fence, it's a shame we don't have more to work with. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124; reply here  10:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I don't think that in depth coverage in a student newspaper, plus passing mentions on a few minor news sites would be enough to prove notability, but I did find this in Wired. I know that Wired itself is reliable, but not sure about Wired Blog. Chagropango (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No awards, no reliable SIGCOV coverage. We have passing mentions and niche, mostly unreliable sources. Wired mention above is very short and does not meet SIGCOV, even before we get into the reliability of Wired Blog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.