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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Unicorn (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)

contested prod of a non-notable band. The creator dumped a load of references in the article as a response to my prod, and claimed it meets #1 and #7 of WP:BAND on my talkpage. I disagree as none of the sources appear reliable and find his claim that it meet #7 as "a prominent representation of a notable style (geek rock). More importantly it is one of the first geek “girl group” productions to see wide release, making it a seminal work of an emerging style" questionable. Please note Geek and Gamer Girls Song and Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song are also at AFD. Yoenit (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:BAND. I would have speedied this if I'd found it first, honestly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you are still free to speedy it if you want, this AFD will just get closed earlier. However, the claim that the song is signficant makes this an invalid A7 as far as I can see. Yoenit (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see why the creator saw it as a band (after all, their first project was a parody music video), but I believe they intend to do other projects as well and, as such, fall under WP:WEB. They are certainly notable (at least in their first and only project so far), as has been noted by the many references and reviews (such as from Wired.com, Geek.com, and MSNBC.com). --V2Blast (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references were a friggin' mess and the article made no indication of actual notability, so I cleaned all that up - like don't list every blog that rambles about it. Notability information is included now. ScarletPepper (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 01:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I owe you bigtime for this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I think the MSNBC and Wired.com articles pretty much knock the non-notability argument out. Shisumo (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe most of the references now in the article are not reliable sources (for example, who is the guy blogging on ign?) I think it is clear this "group" meets WP:WEB and article improvement is needed, not deletion. I therefore withdraw my nomination. (Note: this does not end the AFD, there is still a delete vote). Yoenit (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC) NorthernDragon (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010

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.