Deletion of Why Pink Floyd...?

Comment: Article subject has notability, but a lot of the content was unencyclopedic.  I just removed all portions of the article that violated  including the track listings and other detailed release information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: this really adds nothing to the existing articles, whether on the band or the original albums. Essentially this is a plug for some re-releases, let's hope not commercially motivated in any way. Wikipedia readers are quite capable of looking on music sites for track listings - completeness () is not a valid keep reason, and remember  is not a suitable reason for keeping either. Nor does the existence of hits prove anything: a topic may have many trivial hits (or be dismissed as uninteresting by many serious reviewers in many fine newspapers) without being worth covering
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: This reads like one big |advert for the re-released albums
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Advertising (WP:ADVERT)

Comment: The article is reliably sourced from Billboard already, and there are sources from http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/may/10/pink-floyd-unreleased-tracks-on-emi The Guardian, and http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pink-floyds-nick-mason-reveals-story-behind-massive-new-reissues-20110511 Rolling Stone. That's |significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources so passes . "Considering the obscurity of the name" sounds rather like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:42||WP:GNG||WP:IDONTKNOWIT)