The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Bad faith nomination. This is turning into a sockfest with possible extra pepperoni, and furthermore an attack against the article creator, rather than a discussion about the article at hand. And when you take into consideration the comments by the good faith editors, that makes this a speedy keep. I won't even bother recording this AfD on the talk page of the article either. – B.hotep •talk• 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks any WP:V and has been tagged for over 5 months with nobody advancing any credible references.

It does not meet WP:BAND as:- 1. The band Has NOT a charted si*ngle or album on any national music chart. 2. It has NOT had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 3. It has NOT received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 4. It has NOT become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. It has NOT won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. It Has NOT won or placed in a major music competition. 5 It Has NOT been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

• delete Non-notable band not meeting the requirements of WP:BAND. Article's author has obvious bias WP:POV. The article is pure gossip and promotional in nature. It has no credible resources whatsover. The band is not mentioned in any reputable music directory or chart.Michelle-hine (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not only is this an incomplete and unsigned nomination. It's also a bad faith one. Nominator is a new editor whose 2nd edit is to put together this badly formatted AfD. I suspect this SPA is a sock of Yiwentang (talk · contribs) who has a propensity for attempting to disrupt and wreck articles I've had input on or have created. Regardless, Affinity are a band that meet the requirements of WP:BAND regardless of whether or not the article contains references. --WebHamster 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Making up lines from WP:BAND I see. The true categories that it meets, are:
  • 4 Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
  • 5 Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  • 6 Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

• • So please get your facts right before writing any more lies here Yiwentang. And remember, only one of the above criteria is required to regarded as notable. --WebHamster 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea who, why or waht is yiwentang however what i do know is that the article states "...diagram designed by Mo Foster and Kurt Adkins." and this [1] confirms you are Kurt Adkins which means you have an obvious bias POV and no place in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle-hine (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The the nom attempt to follow WP:BEFORE?? Likely not. Sources are not so difficult to come by, e.g.
  • The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music‎ by Colin Larkin - Music - 1992 - 832 pages - Page 48 - Affinity One of several UK jazz-rock groups signed to the renowned Vertigo label during the early 70s. Affinity consisted of Linda ...
  • All music guide to rock: the definitive guide to rock, pop, and soul‎ by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, Stephen Thomas Erlewine - Music - 2002 - 1399 pages - Page 473 Jim Powers Magick Brother / 1970 / Affinity *»» In 1970. the world got its first .... VUK the first in a successful line of strictly jazz-rock sessions for ...

  Likely more sources exist if someone looks for them. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE There is clearly a WP:Conflict as the author – webhamster has never previously declared his interest as the bands designer behind the release of a “5-CD limited” issue. Neither of its two obscure references are verifiable or trustworthy as both are promotional in nature. It is an advert masquerading as an article with external link spamming. How can there be any WP:V for statements such as "This delighted the band as it would give them a stepping stone to further fame, and although it didn't pay that well they did "get to see incredible jazz artists every night — for free!" This article does not cite any references or sources for 99% of its content.Two-lost-souls (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The account Two-lost-souls (talk · contribs) was created less than 6 hours before commenting here. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoteStop trolling.For example[2]created 2 weeks ago?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Two-lost-souls (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies, I misread 14 as 24. Nev1 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Two-lost-souls and Michelle, even if there were a COI, that alone is no reason for deletion. What WebHamster has or has not designed, which bands he does or does not like, whether he still likes a landing strip or really means "no more bush," all of that is immaterial. Stick to the facts of the article. Two-lost-souls, you're clutching at straws, and I cannot help but wonder what fish bowl you came swimming in from. That he'd be cashing in on the design of a CD box by advertising nefariously on Wikipedia (as is suggested below), that's downright silly. (Disclaimer: I don't get a cut.) Drmies (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Band clearly does not satisfy WP:BAND. It contains not a single WP:V source, and they are totally Non notable per WP:N. as an aside, in my opinion, given that User:WebHamster has declared his conflict of interest, and stands to benefit personally from this article, his vote should be struck from the official record. Zhebius (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Members include Grant Serpell and Mo Foster. Coverage also appears to be there. Does need more sourcing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The band released an album on Vertigo, got plenty of coverage at the time, contained otherwise-notable members, and sources are sufficient to pass both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Re CoI. There is none. I am not the "designer for the band" and never have been. About 4 or 5 years ago, as a self-employed, independent designer I was commissioned to design a Pete Frame-type 'family tree' of the band members. It was a small job for which I received a small one-off payment. I was employed by Mo Foster for an original Angel Air release. I have no connection whatsoever to the Japanese company/release, they didn't even have access to my original Illustrator files, they scanned my work direct from the sleeve notes. I have no financial stake whatsoever in anything released by Affinity, Mo Foster or Angel Air. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether they sell 1 copy or a 100, my fee does not increase one iota. Now that that is cleared up I suggest editors give their !votes based solely on notability criteria. Affinity meets at least 3 of the criteria laid down in WP:BAND when only 1 is required. Arguments of my CoI are simply strawman arguments. Two-lost-souls (talk · contribs)'s vitriol is more than likely down to his/her own CoI, as in May 2008 I attempted to get an early version of The Whip AfD'ed. If you look at their contrib history you may see the connection. A perusal of my talk page may also shed some further light. As for Zhebius (talk · contribs), well he had a similar outburst at another AfD I was involved in. I'll leave the reader to decide its relevance. Strangely enough Zhebius has only ever commented on 2 AfDs... can anyone smell meat? --WebHamster 08:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Would seem to pass general notability with the sources given, particularly the Guinness Book of World Records citation. Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable band with no verifiable sources. Skinny87 should note that the reference he thinks is the "Guinness Book of World Records" is in actual fact something way less notable. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perusal of Bluescreenofdef (talk · contribs)'s own talk page will give perspective to this comment. Still pissed about your namesake having your name before you eh Alan? This is turning out to be a major troll reunion. --WebHamster 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluescreenofdef (talk · contribs) claimed there was no verifiable sources when the article contained a working link to an allmusic biography [3], an easily verifiable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• both Bluescreenofdef and Zhebius have been blocked as sockpuppets. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.