Deletion of The Society of Invisibles

Comment: In fact, a single album release ''fails'' ; a band must have multiple releases to qualify under #1.  Beyond that, the album article has no citations to back up its purported critical reviews; we may have a walled garden here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: The references as they stand: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-08-03/music/high-society/full: an article about the band = non-trivial; http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/store/topsellers.asp?MonthTopSeller=8&YearTopSeller=06: they charted on a retailer-specific sales chart—per , should be removed; http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-07-28/calendar/dirty-dozen/full: a short article about an upcoming show = borderline non-trivial; http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-04-13/music/fever-pitch/full one paragraph in a long review of a music showcase = trivial; http://www.geistaudio.net/army.htm the band's label's website = not 3rd party. Also note that all of the articles are from the same local paper. Sure the album got some reviews, it was released by Babygrande, but also note that some of them are on exceedingly non-notable sites (faygoluvers.net
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Record charts (WP:CHARTS)

Comment: Passes  #1 as seen by the article's references and infobox reviews on their first album, The Society of Invisibles (album). I agree this needs a lot of clean up, but AfD is only meant to determine notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)