Deletion of Progfest '94 (album)

Comment: The is an album article but it tries to cover the festival as well, which is already a mistake. (Though the festival was from pre-Internet times, I did manage to find this article from the period: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-03-ca-58251-story.html, and a few Google Books results in which it appears briefly in various lists of 90's events.) Since we are discussing an apparent album article here, we must use  and the album has even less media coverage that the event that it came from, only being found at various list sites like ProgArchives, and the usual retail/streaming sites
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NALBUM)

Comment: The sources in the article are reliable" -- seriously??  The first one is a primary source.  The second is a track listing, and I am curious upon what basis "sobaworld.co.kr" meets . The third is six sentences long (and I am curious upon what basis "expose.org" meets ).  The fourth does not mention the subject at all.  Neither does the ''Los Angeles Times'' piece listed as an external link in the article. Claiming that these sources provide the |significant coverage ''to the subject'' that the GNG requires is, at best, fishing.  Fails the GNG and WP:ALBUM.And that being said, there's long been a notion held by some that if there's some excuse for there not to be reliable sources on a subject (pre-Internet age, say), the provisions of  and the GNG are waived.  This curious notion is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:V)