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.
Two of those are local sources, so aren't enough. As for the MIT source, well, I'm not convinced it's a reliable source (and I highly doubt, even if it is, that it is RS for music) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 08:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources that meet WP:MUSIC and the fact that the article was created by an account with the same username as the page leads me to believe that it's probably either self-promotion or paying someone to promote the band. One would think, if they really do have three notable albums out, that you could find reviews and such of them in somewhat notable publications. --TKKbark ! 12:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously promotional. No reason to suppose the band meets WP:MUSIC. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2013 (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.