Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age Cartoons


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age Cartoons

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A vanity page for a seemingly popular animation site that cites no reliable sources of its notability. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 Speedy delete Non-notable website. Now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the statement of how it was formed indicates some notabillity--not a speedy. let afd decide. What this needs, is looking for sources. DGG (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete due to a lack of substantial sources. I've had a look and can find nothing. Reyk  YO!  05:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weakest of keeps I cleaned up the article a bit, and there are some references. It's not much, but in the end I asked myself is the encyclopedia better or worse for including this website?  And I concluded that it's better to include it than not. Seems like a good faith effort by people with a passion for old comics to cover them and make them available online.  And I see no harm in including that effort on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the USA Today and Yahoo! Picks references. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I love those old cartoons, and it was a sad day when Cartoon Network stopped airing them, as it was about the only place left to see them, but I haven't seen and can't find any non-trivial mention of it in the sources, all we've got are short "blurbs" so I'm sticking with my vote to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete there's no demonstration of notability here, no Alexa rank. I find the Yahoo Picks and USA Today references, if anything, to be a red flag: these sites list multiple websites every day: tens of thousands of websites would meet such notability criteria. A mention on these three sites is the only attempt to assert notability in the article. &mdash; BillC talk 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of third-party references. A Lexis Nexis search couldn't find anything from major publications The muffin is not subtle (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources presented are almost random generator links. Add unquestionable and reliable references. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The "references" mentioned do are not in depth discussions of the website.  Nothing can be spotted out of the blue from a google search, and the four google news hits are not about the website.  Themfromspace (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if kept, rename Golden Age Cartoons (website) as it is all too likely to be confused with an item on the Golden Age of cartoons. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 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.