Response. I find it somewhat ironic that you're criticizing me for taking the exact actions you took. I noticed a page which I honestly felt (and still do) does not meet any of the 12 pts. in WP:MUSIC. I have no interest in their music or their entry. I only noticed them because I took the time to research the type of articles you wrote while nominating mine for deletion. When I looked at them it became obvious that they are non-notable per WP:MUSIC. I nominated the the articles and I then made pertinent comments in that AFD as any nominator would. I never accused you do doing anything surreptitiously, just pointed out that you had an interest in the outcome of the decision beyond simply being the author of the article. I even broached the bad faith subject. If you were conficent that the articles satisfied WP:MUSIC then you should have stated so in a reasoned, sourced, referenced argument and allowed it to stand up to scrutiny. If the consensus was that they met notability standards (beyond your simple assertion that they did) then the articles would have withstood review. I even offered to change my opinion if you could demonstrate notability. Last I heard, "because WebHamster" says so is not a reliable independent source that i am aware of, nor is that stated anywhere on in WP. (note: You'll notice that I took no action on Mo Foster - because a quick search revealed the at least a prima facia notability, which The Hamsters could not assert)