Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erma (webcomic)

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. Sandstein 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erma (webcomic)[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets the general notability guidelines. I have been keeping track of this subject for a while hoping to be able to create an article on it someday, but only one reliable source has ever covered it (that being Bloody Disgusting, twice: [1] [2]). Nearly all of the citations currently used in the article are primary sources linking to the webcomic itself, Tapastic, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. There is also this blog post, which is not a reliable source and this top list, which is not reliable or notable either. Seeing as Erma does not meet the general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. It is unfortunate, seeing as how much work seems to have gone into it. ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Fails GNG. Cjhard (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep two good articles on the topic in what seems to be a reliable source. The name makes it hard to search, but I too am not turning much up. Very popular comic on imgur and reddit, I'd expect to see more. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: How exactly is coverage by a single reliable source considered significant coverage? ~Mable (chat) 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: I think he means because there are two articles. Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's borderline, but both articles are pretty detailed. Technically qualifies as "multiple" and there is enough there to build an article around. But it isn't an obvious case. A !vote to delete is certainly justifiable. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I think the stronger case is that multiple articles from the same publication does not qualify as multiple sources. This is suggested by the note for the 'sources' part of GNG, which states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The GNG also specifically states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I feel like these parts of GNG were specifically directed at clarifying what I would assume to be the common sense interpretation of 'multiple sources': what is required is different sources, independent of each other. Cjhard (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hobit.
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. Also, probably WP:TOOSOON. Sources are supposed to be intellectually independent of the others. This means sources are supposed to be from various publishers. Not multiple sources from the same publisher. Create this article later, when more sources emerge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage in one RS, meaning it does not meet the GNG, and there do not seem to be any suitable redirect targets. Would be a viable article once/if more RSs discussing the comic in detail emerge.--IDV^talk 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for insufficient coverage. I agree with Maple that The Prose isn't reliable. If additional sources become available, I don't oppose re-creation. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see enough coverage to meet GNG; the Bloody Disgusting links aren't enough for me. This feels like more of a TVTropes topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (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.