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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pogo (electronic musician)[edit]

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

The artist does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia, and the majority of the sources used are not authoritative sources. Crashmart (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)— Crashmart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sources are interviews and the like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is out there if it's searched for: Washington Times, adlatina.com, The Atlantic, Punto Informatico. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N ^walk victor falk^talk 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The sources listed on the article and on this deletion page together do not comprise "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG, and some are questionable in reliability as per WP:GNG. In many cases the artist was only mentioned as part of "trivial coverage" as per WP:MUSIC. --Karkk (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)— Karkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Washington Times and The Atlantic are certainly reliable sources and those two articles are certainly significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid two sources with minimal coverage of the artist are not enough to constitute significant coverage. As much as I believe that every artist should have their chance on Wikipedia, blatant advertising of artists that lack the required notability is not allowed on Wikipedia unfortunately. --Karkk (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The only contributions made to Wikipedia by both the nominator and User:Karkk are attempts to remove this article.--Michig (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange but not really relevant. I have made many edits without an account but decided to get an account recently, and coincidentally noticed this deletion nomination page for an article that lacks the necessary notability for Wikipedia.

Weak keep. I know the refs are light, but I'm failiar with his work through Showtime's Dexter, when Showtime featured his work on their website. When you google "pogo faggotron -wikipedia" (faggotron being another alias of his) you get 1660 hits (not that many, granted, but nothing to sneeze at). I would err on the side of keeping.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep neds cites integrated but it is notableThisbites (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (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.

Could the deletion notice be removed now please since it was decided to keep. -- RND T C 21:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]