Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomplamoose


 * 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   speedy keep. The nomination seems somewhat bad-faith (criterion 2.2) and is clearly very errornous (2.5). Stickee (talk)  12:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pomplamoose

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The band/group is not of notability. Just selling 100,000 songs online does not make it notable. In need references from reliable sources. Illuendo (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Sufficient sources are already provided in the article, including an interview on  All Things Considered and an article in SF Weekly; plenty of additional sources available, including a recent cover story in SF Weekly, coverage from The Atlantic, Fox News in New York, etc.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. In these heady times, it's no longer necessary to sell pieces of plastic to be notable. The ATC interview and the SF Weekly cover article together appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-based on the sources listed above, and on the fact that it was freaking impossible to escape the commercials they were in over the Christmas holidays. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-based on growing awareness of this original duo and their tremendous musical talent, plus their fresh approach to media editing known as "video songs" Hidden Writer 4 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.41.10 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - the AFDs raised on Pomplamoose, Me at the zoo and Alexa Goddard appear to be deliberately disruptive rather than raised for any good reason. The nominator has been warned and I suggest this AFD is closed on this basis. Fæ (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy strong keep If the nominator actually looked at the article than he or she would know that the article is properly sourced. This is a waste of people's time.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:44, 5 April 2011 (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.