Deletion of Junkyard Lipstick

Comment: I agree with many comments above about unreliable sources, but there were enough powerful sources in there, that the group meets the |general notability guideline with multiple, independent coverage in depth. I revamped the article to remove the junk, trimmed out unsourced material, cut out great-looking but overly informational charts (apologies) on the basis of , added categories. Look at the coverage in http://www.rollingstone.co.za/musicrev/item/1455-rolling-stone-weekend-full-line-up-details Rolling Stone, and http://www.rollingstone.co.za/opinion/item/2267-for-the-record-junkyard-lipstick-post-punk-on-new-album-hellbent album review and http://www.rollingstone.co.za/musicrev/item/3163-junkyard-lipstick-unleash-new-ep-the-butcher-s-delight another review and an http://www.rollingstone.co.za/artists/item/1458-qqa-junkyard-lipstick interview in Rolling Stone. My sense is they're an up-and-coming South African band, winning a following, but they are not so great to earn a multi-page promotional spread (so-and-so was the guitarist in this month, etc, or a listing of every single they've ever recorded -- save that for the web site, thank you) in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE)