Deletion of Fat Chicks in Party Hats (2nd nomination)

Comment: with long-winded reason: Assuming good faith this passes notability for coverage in multiple secondary sources...or at least so it says.  5 different Fat_Chicks_in_Party_Hats#Reviews_and_references_in_popular_culture|references are listed and not one of them is an appropriate citation.  If Premium Magazine conducted an interview, great.  What issue?  What pages of that issue?  If there is a web version of the magazine, where is the link?  This presumably passes  and then seems to be intent on throwing that away by boldly failing that whole "verifiable" part of .  Beyond this, the article is written like a fansite, and it's horribly awash in |weasel words (particularly Fat_Chicks_in_Party_Hats#Who_is_Miguel.3F|here) presumably to once again avoid that pesky task of actually looking up citations.  I mean really: "Some believe he is actually Seanbaby himself...".  Who thinks that?  The author?  The author's friend who once sent him an e-mail with a link to the site?  I'm willing to nudge my opinion to "weak keep" if citations are added, but the OR and POV seriously need to be cleaned up as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:V||WP:WEASEL)

Comment: What do you mean, "no references"?  The article lists plenty of print reviews (although the citations are incomplete).  I recall reading reviews in other print publications as well.  Seems to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)