Deletion of The Orange Lights (2nd nomination)

Comment: based on shallow coverage yet lack of |significant coverage. {{U|Michig}} has made a good argument for keeping it, based on reviews of their one CD, which normally is sufficient to let an article stay in. In this case, the coverage just seems so basic. There's no argument that they pass  by meeting the usual factors - a hit song, national touring, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:MUSICBIO)

Comment: As per the original AFD, this is a band that achieved nothing of note, meets no part of , and folded without fanfare. The brief coverage linked was not sustained and is not substantial. It is the biggest problem with music AFDs - I feel I'm saying this a lot - that users dig up a handful of press pieces from what may seem like important sources, and say that these mean it meets the criteria because there is evidence of "coverage". On any degree of investigation, this coverage comes from either minor sources (e.g. local newspapers), or from major sources, but buried on their website or as part of a series on new bands (as with The Guardian link here). The argument for inclusion is that a vast, daily, web-only series on new bands, that covers hundreds of them, an album review via a mid-level website, and two local newspaper pieces (one of which isn't even primarily about the band) is enough for this band to meet the criteria for inclusion. The barrel has been well and truly scraped to even dig those up as the total sum of this band's coverage, and not one of them brings The Orange Lights close to notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)