- 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 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Cox & Forkum
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cox & Forkum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prior AfD closed as keep, under very different standards than exist today. I can find no evidence of notability for this former cartoon/blog. This is probably the best source and and it's not independent. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to RL0919 and Missvain, nom and closer, respectively. StarM 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably also best to ping Loadmaster, who participated in the previous discussion and has edited recently. The other two participants don't appear to be recently active. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I didn't think this was notable in 2013 and there aren't any new sources since then. One of the sources that editors cited for notability in the previous discussion is an interview, which would not be accepted as an independent source under current standards. Another claimed source for notability had been rejected at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard back in 2010; I regret that I didn't pick up on that in the previous discussion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (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.
- 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 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Cox & Forkum
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cox & Forkum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prior AfD closed as keep, under very different standards than exist today. I can find no evidence of notability for this former cartoon/blog. This is probably the best source and and it's not independent. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to RL0919 and Missvain, nom and closer, respectively. StarM 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably also best to ping Loadmaster, who participated in the previous discussion and has edited recently. The other two participants don't appear to be recently active. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I didn't think this was notable in 2013 and there aren't any new sources since then. One of the sources that editors cited for notability in the previous discussion is an interview, which would not be accepted as an independent source under current standards. Another claimed source for notability had been rejected at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard back in 2010; I regret that I didn't pick up on that in the previous discussion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (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.