Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Polyamorous Affair


 * 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Polyamorous Affair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm unconvinced by this act's notability. aside from the lack of references and clear COI issues, relating to WP:Music, this is my assessment no indication of any chart performances. likely that no album or single charted. a handful of reviews in respectable publications. reviews to me seem to be more suited to being classified as 'trivial as per WP:Music section 4 rather than significant coverage as per WP:GNG. Main internet search results are automatic entries on places like google play and itunes and discogs. band does not have significant web presence - most viewed youtube video has 50,547 views, majority of remainder have sub-10,000 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=polyamorous+affair facebook page has 1,585 likes https://www.facebook.com/The-Polyamorous-Affair-38684109107 last.fm has 124,000 plays http://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affairhttp://www.last.fm/music/The+Polyamorous+Affair my interpretation of the guidelines suggests delete unless I'm missing something or misinterpreting Rayman60 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article doesn't claim notability, and notability isn't inherited from the artists. The complete lack of sources doesn't help either. Sunmist3 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A poor article and a lack of sources in the article are not necessarily an indication of a lack of notability, as the following easily-found coverage demonstrates:, , , , , plus . --Michig (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Also this. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. While poorly written and cited, article appears to have relevance by discussing a band with a clear record of recognition within the broader music community. In fact, while reviewing previous edits to the article, I noticed that several apparent citations have been removed over time. Contributors could easily modify the article to include those references again. DavDaven (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This seems like another case of a band that's had some minimal coverage by important music outlets, and consequently that has been used to justify an article. I do feel that the notability guidelines for music need some amendment, because too often it seems that every source is linked as evidence of "coverage", but often on actual inspection this is brief, not focused on the artist, or from a local publication that's unsuitable for assessing notability (and with a whole load of recency bias thrown in too). This seems to, again, be the case here: Quite a bit of the "easily-found coverage" is L.A. based media, including an inclusion on a list no less. If this is the sum of their prominent publicity then I can't see a substantial reason to keep this; That said, the NME review is more relevant, so I'll accept there's at least a case for inclusion. But as I say, as an aside, we don't seem to hold musicians to the same stringent criteria we do other fields and this is problematic. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by Michig. The article just needs an overhaul. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as has enough coverage in total, with the links identified earlier, passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.