Deletion of Asleep Next to Science

Comment: The nominator failed to do a  and instead resorts into his typical ''if-then'' statements. The album has received some coverage, including the sources indicated by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I can't really understand the nominator's comment that this article doesn't have enough references to exist by itself, when there are two sourced independent reviews already there in the article, the indication that a third one exists in print form (it doesn't appear to have been archived, unfortunately), and there are two more reviews at ''Sputnikmusic'' which are acceptable as they are written by "Emeritus" reviewers https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/48176/Orbs-Asleep-Next-to-Science/, https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/39163/Orbs-Asleep-Next-to-Science/... there's another possibly acceptable review at ''Dead Press'' as well https://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-orbs-asleep-next-to-science/ but I'm not so sure about this being an RS. There's also a track-by-track explanation of the album in ''Alternative Press'' https://web.archive.org/web/20100819193831/https://www.altpress.com/features/entry/track-by-track_orbs... yes, this is , but it can be used for factual information about the origin of the band's name and what each track is about (let's face it, any source explaining what a song is about almost certainly comes directly from the writer(s) anyway, as they are the only ones who truly know). There does seem to be plenty of information available about this album even on the internet, and very likely more in print form. The fact that the band does not at present have its own article does not preclude the album having an article –  states: "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:NALBUM)