Deletion of ArcAttack

Comment: Not all of the references provided in the article are what I would consider to be |reliable sources, but there are enough of them.  The http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9921650-52.html CNET article is actually by a staff writer.  The http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090719/ART/707189984 National article also would count as significant coverage.  My own searches shows that they have also been covered in http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/05/an-electifying-performance-by-arcattack/ Wired.  And although behind a pay wall, the title of teh article in the http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AASB&p_theme=aasb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12C18BA0E92C5820&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Austin American Statesman make it clear that the group is the main subject of the article.  This represents multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the group.  As such it meets the criteria for |general notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)