Deletion of Phase (band)

Comment: Did a load of clean up and fixing. I can see the single being hosted on Feb 2010 from Microsoft's Playlist 7, but I can't get the actual press release for it. A minor mention from a notable companie's larger push for marketing, using Phase's work in the process. Still have numerous indie reviews and small interviews here and there, I'm mostly finding the English ones. According to lastfm's event list they've done more then 30 events recently, but Lastfm is not a reliable source. I've removed the ones which could be used for advertising and some useless sources, cut out the fancy timeline and all but the current members from the band. Its far from perfect, but if fixing these issues will help it stick around, why not. They seem to have released a song 'Red Alert' on a new album on 'Between the Lines'. According to itunes that is, but the album art uses 'Phaze' as the attributed band. So I'm not adding it in. Its one of the more notable indie bands, but no, its not highly important. If anything In Consequence should go and we should keep the band itself just for completeness. I think it meets GNG because we have numerous comments about its existence and has been in good standing with outlets like Reverbnation with #3 in Greek alternative and #15 nationally. Uplaya might not be the best source, but they do reflect the material in this page and did comment about its cover art. I see 8 different interviews, reviews and critiques, but none are major labels. They may not be famous, but we can vouch for certain claims and it is verifiable and repeated throughout numerous sources. Under -REASON it could only hit upon the reason "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, , WP:CORP and so forth)", but they seem to meet  on some levels and even if they do not meet the exact criteria, it doesn't mean the article has to be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: per 10 pound Hammer (if ''he'' thinks it's almost notable, it has to be notable). It has three good sources, so it's |notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The arguments given by Asouko (the author of the article), the other single purpose account, and the single purpose IP amount to (a) mentioning sources which are not reliable, not independent, or both, or too indiscriminate to be an indication of notability (e.g. a blog, press releases, amazon), (b) asserting that it is "undeniable" that a performance by the band is of "undebatable notability", despite the fact that others clearly do deny it, (b) stating that there are other articles which, it is claimed, are no better, (c) saying that anyone who thinks the article should be deleted is "fascist" and "nazi", and is "playing the cops". None of these are reasons for not deleting under Wikipedia policy. The only independent editor to argue for "keep", ChrisGualtieri, says "Meets WP:GNG and that is the only thing which matters", but, as Ten Pound Hammer points out, ''does not give any indication at all of how or why it "meets WP:GNG"''. There are 16 references in the article. One of those does not mention "Phase", some of them barely mention it, or merely include it in a list. Some are clearly not independent sources, or not reliable sources. I am not saying "delete", because it may be that there are some reliable sources, but it has not yet been demonstrated that there are. None of the editors saying "keep" have been around for more than a few months, so it may be that they are not clear what is needed to establish notability. Those who are asking for "keep" need to read the guideline on |reliable sources, if they haven't already done so, and explain clearly which sources are reliable and why. If they can do so, then that will be great, but if not, then the article will have to be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Meets  and that is the only thing which matters. Also, from the guideline noted above, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." All those notability guidelines are not actually relevant if X is notable and typically asserts whether or not it probably IS notable. Deletion is a last resort, the article can easily be fixed and an internationally recognized band. It doesn't even seem that a major contributor has a mastery of English, so phrases like 'engage tenths of thousands of listeners worldwide' are clearly mistakes. It needs fixing not deleting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)