Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cox & Forkum


 * 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. Assume good faith - improve and expand before nominating again, please. SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cox & Forkum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looking for sources about this editorial cartoon series produced lots of funny cartoons but no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Tagged for notability since July 2009 with no sources added since. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep — They published four books (collections of their cartoons). Here is a review of their site at ComixTalk.com, and a referral of their books at GoodReads.com. Here's an interview with the authors at CapitalismMagazine.com. Do these count? — Loadmaster (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Their own books definitely don't count toward notability, and I don't think GoodReads would either since the content there is user-generated. The ComixTalk review and the interview are relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources at all. Blogs like ComixTalk.com, GoodReads.com, and CapitalismMagazine.com are unreliable. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You could say that CapitalismMagazine.com is an unreliable source, but the link is an interview of the actual artists themselves, not just a review of their work. Since it's important to some editors that WP be comprehensive in its coverage of people (consider all of the obscure athletes it lists, for example), I would think that C&F would have the amount of notoriety/fame to meet the minimum inclusion requirements. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. just passes the notability requirement. De Guerre (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2013 (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.