Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Cutaneum (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 keep. Limited input, but the continuing consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cutaneum[edit]

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

Reliable sources exist that show that someone did, in fact, create this character, but that does not automatically mean that there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Appears to be a flash in the pan local character with limited local mentions in local news media and brief mentions in very specialized publications five years ago. To have enough notability for a Wikipedia article there needs to be multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. This is definitely trivial. It reads as a vanity piece or free advertising, and indeed the bulk of the article was added by two editors whose editing histories are nearly devoid of other edits. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand why an editor might find the coverage here insufficient, but it can't be fairly characterized as merely "local" or "flash in the pan". The character got substantial writeups in two different national medical publications two years apart, and in addition to multiple coverage in the Phoenix area over a period of years (including this year [1]) there's also a story from a Kansas TV station reproduced on the official website [2]. Strictly speaking, I think the extent of the coverage passes GNG, although I can see why others might set the threshold elsewhere. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, it's a goofy character of limited reach, but there is substantial coverage in reliable sources and the earlier AfD nom cleaned up the article substantially. That means if passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (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.