Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack Cartoon


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Crack Cartoon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable cartoon. Kannie | talk 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete violates the core policy of verifiability, add on to that the failure of WP:N and WP:FICT RMHED (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A speculative and unsourced article about an unpublished (and apaprently unwritten) cartoon. Article creator admits it is not notable but suggests it might be one day, which is when this article should be receated. Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I already removed a "vanity" link from the cartoon page, which I watch. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete having read WP:CRYSTAL I see how this does not work. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and fast. -- E n d l es s D a n  19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Author himself/herself stated in the article that the subject was not notable; speedy per CSD criteria. P.B. Pilhet  21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete per everyone's arguments.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:52, 5 January 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.