Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Cartoon

From 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bang Cartoon

Bang Cartoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Web site whose strongest claim of notability is a single event sourced mostly to "quotes directly from John Tayman" and the website itself. Web searches for combinations of "Bang Cartoon" and "John Tayman" indicate non-notability. Jfire (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - It has been featured in many news broadcasts on t.v and radio. There just aren't copies of the reports on the net. Buc (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable website. Like the previous user says, it has been featured in the media and is frequently referenced on other websites. Enigma msg! 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please provide some citations? In fact, few or none of the references in the article (e.g. "Detroit news January 2006", "Quotes directly from John Tayman", "Website traffic reference- Google Analytics", and the links such as [1]) are reliable or verifiable. Jfire (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it posted about on the Internet a lot. I don't have links immediately available, but there have been interviews with John Tayman and follow-up articles. Also, they're frequently posted about on messageboards all over the Internet. A quick Google search yields a lot of links. Enigma msg! 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We require reliable sources. Internet message boards are not reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't say they were reliable sources. I was using it as evidence of notability. Enigma msg! 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:N, the definition of notability is coverage in reliable sources. If the sources aren't reliable, they aren't evidence of notability. Jfire (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable website. NFL Players and coaches themselves have enjoyed the cartoons, and unfortunately most newspapers don't archive their articles but for so long. Hard to blame the site for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.78.205 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) — 69.251.78.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Actually, most newspapers do have online archives these days (even small papers -- see for example [2], where I just located online references for two relatively small papers). If this website really is notable, these sorts of references should not be hard to find. So far, we have people asserting that they do exist, but not actually producing any. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (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.