Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shut Up! Cartoons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up! Cartoons[edit]

Shut Up! Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at WP:BEFORE, there's nothing more reliable source to be found,thus failing GNG (Best would be to merge into Smosh.) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Almost missed this one as I hadn't created it directly, but rather from a redirect, and for some reason it wasn't on my watchlist. But that would make it 4 articles I created in some way that've been nominated for deletion in a 35-minute span. Really odd. Also mixed in that span was an IP edit going for (not an AFD nom, but rather) a straight up redirect on a 5th article I created. Idk.
Either way, the sourcing present here is sufficient for GNG. The Adweek source, Variety source, and LA Times source all help establish notability here. The first and third ones there should be noted, need a subscription to access. Will update the references in the article to convey that information. Also found the following sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 that can be added to the article. Soulbust (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
siroχo 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.