Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrito unicorn


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America1000 01:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Burrito unicorn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are looking for sources to establish that this cute, imaginary creature is a subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, at least in Seattle and preferably not just locally.  The best I could do is a brief entry dated September 3, 2010 in The Stranger "Slog" blog that verifies there was a "missing" sign posted in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.  Nothing in the Seattle Times or Seattle Weekly, even.   This is simply not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guideline or any other special purpose guideline I can think of. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Fails to credibly assert WP:NOTABILITY, no WP:RS.  If RS could be found for it, sufficient for at least some bare minimum notability, then fair enough, but can't be anything other than delete without them.  No prejudice against it returning if it ever satisfies those concerns (seems unlikely, but you never know).   Murph 9000  (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete multiple reliable sources needed, but none are cited, and the source mentioned here lacks information. Peter James (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.