Deletion of This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination)

Comment: podcasts, webcasting, blogs, social-networking cites"'' have one thing in common: no quality controls: anything and everything gets on there. |That's no way to establish notability. We do have weaknesses here; one of them is a horrid insistence on |verifiability.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:N||:WP:V)

Comment: as satisifying criteria 3 of . I agree that this is a textbook case of why Wikipedia needs to update its notability standards for the 21st Century, as it's difficult for most webmedia to attain the notability standards currently in place for . I happen to believe this particular site does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: webzine just barely meets , label has notable artists, but its the lack of outside sources that's sorta killing it. I've found a few more http://news.google.com/archivesearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS254&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22This+is+Fake+DIY%22 Google News articles although three reference a Bis song with the same name. Another thing is the http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/thisisfakediy.co.uk somewhat weak Alexa rating. I really can't find much else. I'm sure there must be a few links to the site from the websites of notable bands
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)