Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (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 both. There is insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, and Web Cartoonists' Choice Award does not appear to be an important enough award to confer inherent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Online

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

Minimal notability. No third party sources found. Simply being published in a notable magazine ≠ notability; winning Web Cartoonist Choice Award ≠ notability if no other sources exist. Several other winners of this award have indeed been deleted in the past for meeting no other criterion of notability, such as Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (shame, since DMFA is really good) — if there's no notability beyond the award, it ain't notable. Last AFD was flooded with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLEs without a single policy being cited, and notability arguments being limited to the award and a listing on Comixpedia.

Also listing the author's article, as he seems to fail WP:ANYBIO; what few sources exist are interviews. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that it was published in a print magazine for some years? And that it's run continuously since September 1996? For any comic, that's longevity. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is immaterial here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schwartz's article lacks an AFD template linking to this discussion. Someone another 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schwarz Funnily enough I only know anything about him because he's featured in the latest issue of Retro Gamer magazine. Some 15 years after the fact he's been hailed as "Mr. Animation" for the system, the piece also confirms he's the creator of one of the world's longest running webcomics and has won the Bit.Movie contest several times. This guy was involved with one of the system's cult classics, Superfrog, and has literally just been recognized as "an industry legend in the hotseat" by one of retrogaming's major voices. This is on top of his comics being published in a major UK amiga magazine and him creating one of the system's unofficial mascots. The furry angle is another one entirely and may have more sources for use. I think he passes WP:ANYBIO just fine. No opinion on the comic as of yet. Someone another 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added are all primary or interviews, which are not enough to carry a bio. Also, lots of people get all sorts of buzzwords when they're talked about, so phrases like "an industry legend in the hotseat" are just puffery and nothing more. I still fail to see the notability for Schwarz; no one's covered him significantly, just interviewed him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk) He was interviewed in relation to his work on the Amiga this year, where he is referred to as "Mr. Animation", 13 years after the interview in CU Amiga which states "Eric Schwartz made his name in the late 80s as one of the Amiga's most innovative animators." That isn't just puffery, it's a niche but nonetheless recognized specialism which has caused these video game magazines to seek him out. Per WP:ANYBIO #2 "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Interviews might not be the ideal sources to base articles on, but sources are not cut to fit WP's purposes, and I believe they suffice for what is a an individual in a niche area. ~~You still haven't added an AFD banner to his article, please rectify that.~~ Someone another 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Someone another 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both. The few references there are for the comic don't show that it is of any importance. The author article is slightly better but a biographical article based on just interviews and self-published sources has its own problems. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep both~~ Combine (see below) There seems to be a notable award, which is enough to support both articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there's jack squat in the way of reliable sources? As I pointed out, at least one other comic that won the same award had its article deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Web Cartoonists' Choice award does not appear to be a significant award (indeed it doesn't even appear to be a notable award, which is a separate standard). ^Bongo_matic 03:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I changed my opinion to combine, under the name of the person. The contents of the two articles is sufficiently similar that this would be easy to do, and the notability is not so very great as to really justify two separate articles--whether or not technically justified, it would be over-emphasis. As always, I prefer the name of the person, who may do other notable work, so the article on him is more likely to be capable of expansion. I thank TPH for encouraging me to revisit my opinion & suggest a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (reply to Bongomatic) Though there was some debate about the WCC award's notability in 2007, the more recent consensus is that it is notable. See this April 2010 discussion. --El on ka 19:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eric W. Schwartz as the interviews show he is worthy of notice per WP:PEOPLE. I don't think the web comic has sufficient notability to stand alone, so I suppose that puts me in the merge and redirect of Sabrina Online to the author's article - with less depth though. Bigger digger (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book could br useful to someone. No preview, so can't say for sure. Bigger digger (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, the award isn't notable, and frankly I'm really not convinced that the person is either, but if anyone is seriously interested in creating a well-sourced combined article it can't hurt to let them give it a try. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would argue that the Web Cartoonists' Choice (WCC) award does confer a certain amount of notability because it appears to have become the industry-standard award in this category. At least, if there is some other webcomic award that is more prominent than the WCC, I am not aware of it. Being published in hardcopy also increases a webcomic's notability. There is still a judgment call involved, of course. I don't believe that one WCC award and one limited print run should automatically warrant a Wikipedia article. But multiple awards and multiple print runs, do give more weight to the notability argument. For this article, it looks like we have one win and multiple nominations, which is kind of borderline. I also feel that the Wikipedia article could use other improvement: There is too much in-universe information, and very little in the way of 3rd party coverage aside from the awards. But on balance, I would say that there is enough here to warrant keeping the article. --El on ka 17:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eric Schwartz since he is not well known for anything but Sabrina Online. No opinion about Sabrina Online. While the WCA is notable, the category “Best romantic comic” certainly can’t be compared to the category “Best comic”, and it’s the only category the comic won. WCA nominations generally mean nothing. Otherwise Sabrina Online has also just been published in one magazine if the article does not omit information. Which might be true since Sabrina Online is a very well known comic and had a strong influence on the furry fandom. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge comic is mildly notable, as above. Schwartz definitely seems notable (in a niche area). VikÞor | Talk 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. This page on a non-notable webcomic, replete with links to the comics, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The author is clearly not notable; made some mascots for commercials doesn't cut it. Abductive (reasoning) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. In regards to the webcomic, the nearly complete lack of coverage for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards shows that this is an extremely minor award that is not an indicator of notability. It may just barely meet the notability standards for an article itself, but it obviously does not meet the "well-known and independent award" standard of WP:WEB. In regards to the person, the only near reputable sources are interviews. An interview is a primary source; sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources per WP:GNG, so this fails the standards of WP:GNG. Further, a few interviews in recent years is a far, far cry from the "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" standard of WP:ANYBIO. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no opinion on which article should be the resulting title. Collectively, the WCC award and Schwartz's other work seems to be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. --Carnildo (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (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.