Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erma (webcomic)

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

Erma (webcomic)

Erma (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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
missfortune 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 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]
  • 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]
@
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]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.