Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn Jelly

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Jelly

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

Non-notable webcomic; fails WP:WEB, as it doesn't seem to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. (The only good sources I could find are [1] and [2], neither of which seem particularly reliable.) It hasn't received any awards or had any appreciable impact on the wider world. I also note that this article was previously speedy-deleted in 2007 under WP:A7; that doesn't quite apply any more, but it still doesn't pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, absolutely nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, tagged as needing sources since 2008, fails notability, just a mess of original research. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:26, 7 March 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.