Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Cartoon DataBase (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 delete. Ghits alone, especially without any evidence that the sources listed in Google are adequately reliable, do not establish notability by themselves. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cartoon DataBase

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a nonnotable website that does not meet the general notability guidelines as it hasn't been significantly discussed in reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find was a mention in the Reference and User Services Association's best free reference websites list, but this isn't the well-known award needed for notability per WP:WEB. Them From Space 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article about web content does not explain the significance or notability of its subject. Further, it is unsourced (see WP:RS), and good faith Google searches turn up plenty of listings of its name and testimonials of its existence but, in my opinion, no significant, reliable, independent coverage (see WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghits show enough coverage in independent media sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the ghits again and I still can't see the significant discussion of the site from reliable sources. If you provide a few examples that you found I'm willing to change my mind, but I haven't yet found the coverage needed to build a verifiable encyclopedic article. Them From Space 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless these sources can be found - add them to the article and bump the discussion. I have been monitoring this (and its sister for quite a while now and they have both been down for months with no sign of them returning (see their respective talk pages). So it is unlikely that any new material will appear to bolster its notability (unless some newsworthy reason appears to explain the sites' disappearance), but if you can find some older material then I'd look it over and reconsider my opinion. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (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.