Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network Block Party

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. Courcelles 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Block Party

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

~~Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Lack of sources generally isn't a valid criterion for deletion, but after searching Google, I could find several places to purchase this comic books series but not anything actually about it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: Agree, this article needs improvements and still need sources. JJ98 (Talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree, doesn't that still mean "delete" in this case? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. JJ98 (Talk) 23:11, 10 January 2011 (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.

This was good article and now I find out it has been deleted because two people kind of thought maybe it should have been. Here's an idea: if you didn't like the article don't look at it. People had obviously worked hard on this and it was actually useful unlike 99% of the articles on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.143.160 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]