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.
Good work finding [2], a really solid source. [3] is a blog post without any depth. [4] and [5] are really generic interviews, with the questions portraying no sign of the interviewers having listened to the music or knowing anything beyond the standard press release info; none of the questions are challenging or obviously journalistic. In short these two aren't independent reliable sources, I think they're routine coverage of the band. Taken together, they're not really good enough for me; but another source as solid as the first and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just Leaning Keep: Ok, being serious now, I think notability is fairly in question, but its not an open-and-shut case. That's why I declined the prod earlier this year. (I also downloaded some of their tunes back then, btw, nice indie rock/pop in the brooklyn vein.[7]) Here's another source (college newspaper) [8]. For those in doubt, I'd ask, what about the existing sources is insufficient? Reviews in Pitchfork? What would put you over the line? They aren't yet Real Estate (band), I guess.--Milowent • hasspoken13:54, 9 November 2012 (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.