Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Cartoon (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 keep. Consensus that notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Bang Cartoon
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find a single reliable source except for the short, archived references from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Unless there is more news coverage of this website that I missed then I really don't think it's notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should probably be trimmed, though. -- 2pou (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: The two sources are multiple and enough to satisfy GNG, and The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun are excellent sources. The articles suggest that multiple news sites also used the cartoons created, evidenced by the San Francisco Chronicle/SFGATE link.  The Baltimore Sun link currently provided is a strange archive link...  It only links the abstract and not the article.  After searching for a better archive, the full text was pasted in this forum, and if you have Newspapers.com access, it made the front page of the sports section here, taking up most of the page (thanks to some of the cartoons), and then being continued on a subsequent page (still taking most of the page).  It shouldn't matter that the Post piece is archived, but that piece also spans two webpages (well over WP:100W), and it technically is live, (though for some reason the image is only retained in the archive vice live site).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above; offline sources are still valid (WP:OFFLINE) and I'm convinced by the above that there is likely more. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as this appears to be notable per 2pou's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:29, 23 February 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.