Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romo


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Romo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

By definition a 'fad', no assertion of notability, unsourced Archivey (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep. It was a musical movement that got quite a lot of press coverage. For example articles (some about Romo, some that mention it in passing) from the Washington Times, MTV, The Independent, The Guardian, and El Universal. A merge to New Romantic may be in order but it shouldn't be deleted.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources established by Michig are sufficient to establish notability and worthiness of encyclopedia entry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

romo got a front cover of melody maker which was a leading music newspaper at the time. how one earth is this not notable? its ridiculous this has even been flagged for deletion in the first place. the person who did that obviously doesn't know anything about romo.

romo was covered in virtually every single major newspaper and magazine in the UK during 1996. romo was also featured on radio 1 and LBC. channel 4, ITV and BBC 1 also featured romo.

can we please end this absolutely ridiculous discussion over whether something that recieved massive media coverage is notable or not? thanks.

p.s. romo has virtually nothing to do with new romantic, so a merge makes no sense whatsoever. again, the person who suggested clearly know little about romo and their opinion should be weighted accordingly. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk • contribs)
 * Tip: Create an account, sign in, cite some sources, then your opinion may have more influence in this discussion. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Washington Times is nontrivial, for instance. Wily D 21:00, 12 January 2009 (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.