Deletion of Labradford

Comment: I contested the prod, and gave my reasons in both the edit summary and on the discussion page. Bit of a silly nomination, IMHO. Anyway, this AfD has served it's purpose - the article now contains reliable sources thanks to the editors above, and many, many more are easily available via Google. Meets , by some distance. '''sparkl
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: Obviously satisfies  and . Why is this AfD still even open
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meet the |general notability guideline as well as |the inclusion criteria for bands through releasing multiple records on ''"one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)"''. Coverage http://www.nme.com/reviews/labradford/4034 here, http://www.nme.com/reviews/labradford/1020 here, http://books.google.com/books?id=haBYoTQr03kC&q=%22Labradford%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Labradford%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=QgHCTPnzJ8PhUPWs3OkK&cd=1 here, http://books.google.com/books?id=rikEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=%22Labradford%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=QgHCTPnzJ8PhUPWs3OkK&cd=4#v=onepage&q=%22Labradford%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false here, http://books.google.com/books?id=haEfq-nKqjgC&pg=PR7-IA521&dq=%22Labradford%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=QgHCTPnzJ8PhUPWs3OkK&cd=6#v=onepage&q=%22Labradford%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false here and http://books.google.com/books?id=04KtwVkHNv0C&pg=PA497&dq=%22Labradford%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=QgHCTPnzJ8PhUPWs3OkK&cd=7#v=onepage&q=%22Labradford%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false here. That allmusic info isn't just one paragraph either, they review every album
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NBAND)