Deletion of Tuff Monks

Comment: While I can understand some of the arguments for deletion, my personal feeling is that #1 is met here. '''sparkl
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: while they do technically pass #C6, and it is true that they |exist, http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:jjfpxq8gldde~T2, I can find no reliable, third party sources to establish any sort of |notability. No  means  therefore nothing to merge, and redirect not possible due to the sheer numbers of members involved
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:V||WP:MUSIC||WP:RS)

Comment: You can read what we were thinking - it is what we wrote down.  But what are you thinking not assuming good faith about other editors - please stick to the topic and not (even mildly) attack other editors. Back on topic I have also found that the NME think it's important enough to warrant a line (but not the correct spelling!) in their http://www.nme.com/artists/birthday-party brief profile of the Birthday Party.  And ZhaoHong - this isn't just (or even) about the "unnotable recording" - it's about the band that made it and how it was released.  It's a clear match of criteria C6 of  - it contains notable musicians.  The note that normally early or side projects should be redirected is unable to be done |sensibly here, as you can't redirect to both of the contributing bands, and neither band was the lead contributor.  Hence there is no need to worry about whether it charted (I'm not going to pay $83 to http://www.austchartbook.com.au/book1970-1992.htm) or if it meets any of the other criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:UCS)