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. GedUK  09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Geeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:ORG. not much third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This organization passes WP:ORG. I found this article from PC World and this article from The Star. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 articles is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, two articles that provide significant coverage about the subject are enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This isn't what I was hoping for when I clicked on the links. Oh well. Sourcing is sufficient enough I suppose. JBsupreme (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Cunard. Pcap ping 00:55, 29 January 2010 (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.