Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.N. Force

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.N. Force[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet the general notability criteria or the criteria for books. All the sources are either not reliable, not independent or provide insignificant coverage. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I bought this book off the stands and remember a flurry of news coverage around then, but nothing substantial. Failed comic from a mid-range independent publisher's attempt to create a new comic book universe (which was the style at the time). Vanished with the rest of the line in the midst of a three-part story. I've been waiting twenty years for issue #6. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as author and as an inclusionist of more knowledge, for a more open Wikipedia. Article existing since July 2011. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to this same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure short-lived comic series with essentially no coverage in reputable secondary sources to establish notability. Despite the claim in the article of extensive contemporary news coverage, a Factiva search of 1992-1994 turns up only a single news article (in the Sydney Morning Herald and other Fairfax Media publications) mentioning the comic. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2012 (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.