Deletion of Trash Talk (band)

Comment: Eek. That's a mountain of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm frankly not sure how the nominator comes to the conclusions they come to, and if  was considered I'd recommend trying Google as part of your due diligence next time. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination -- I just randomly clicked on two of the sources Mich links (The Guardian, BBC) and either of them are enough to let this band plainly pass any notability concerns, let alone verifiability ones
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I removed the speedy tag because it was inappropriate. Before this was even speedy-tagged the article already contained references from Rolling Stone and Spin magazine - not in-depth coverage but enough to make speedy-deletion inappropriate.  involves looking for alternatives for deletion, and at least making some effort to find coverage, before bringing an article to AFD. Had you searched for sources you may have found, within the first few pages of Google results, coverage from http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14102-eyes-nines/ Pitchfork Media, http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/cxm5 the BBC, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/21/new-band-trash-talk The Guardian, http://drownedinsound.com/releases/15391/reviews/4140008 Drowned in Sound, http://drownedinsound.com/releases/14989/reviews/4138701?relevant-artist and again, http://stereogum.com/365591/trash-talk-explode-video-stereogum-premiere/news/ Stereogum, http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/rbpn BBC again, and Rock Sound (http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/trash-talk-get-robbed, http://www.rocksound.tv/reviews/article/trash-talk-eyes-and-nines). See also http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/trashtalk/eyesandnines Metacritic - reviews from Q Magazine, NME, Absolutepunk.com
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)