Deletion of Poor Paul

Comment: Dude, this article was created three days ago. You didn't give the creators enough time to flesh the article out properly. Nevertheless, it meets  #3, which says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;7 except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." as it is distributed by KoldKast.TV. Additionally, third party sources: http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/09/01/jessica-rose-joins-poor-paul-cast/ http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/06/23/poor-paul-and-his-roommates-back-for-second-season/ http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/08/17/poor-paul-auctions-role-for-charity/ http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/79136 http://enewschannels.com/2009/06/23/enc7641_165051.php http://news.tubefilter.tv/2008/09/22/poor-paul-digs-the-subconscious/ http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/090120-staff-columnscomedyseries.html http://www.bignews.biz/?id=811643&keys=attraction-inspiration-marketing-words etc. The article therefore meets  AND  (which it actually does not need to meet explicitly if it meets a more specific category, per  - "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: ... Web content." Since the article in question clearly meets Wikipedia notability policies, I would suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:N||WP:N)