Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push Play

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. JForget 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push Play

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

Deleted multiple times as A7. Asserts one trivial and one mostly trivial mention--I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND, but a PROD would obviously be contested. Jclemens (talk)

Comment: Some references to work with: [1], [2] warning-press release, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Do with these what you will! Fribbler (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a band on the rise. They'll probably be notable eventually, but I don't think they're there yet, per JClemens. MirrorLockup (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find reliable coverage here: [9] [10] [11] [12]. That it's been deleted multiple times says more about the admins and deletion taggers than the subject. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1. I would also add this article in The Times-Picayune and this article in Newsday to User:Apoc2400's list of sources noted above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage demonstrates notability, but I could understand anyone tagging this as an A7 as even though the band is notable, you wouldn't know this from the article.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2009 (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.