Talk:Affinity (band)

message: can Kurt or somebody please tell me the date of this alleged reference as i have scanned all 52 editions of that year and there is no reference to Affinity. maybe i missed something.86.176.165.14 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: nobody seems to object so i have taken out the reference to the Sunday Times. If anybody wants to put it back in perhaps they could refer to the date of the alleged edition in which this alleged comment was made.86.179.116.37 (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see without discussion someone has put the reference back in by simply stating that because it was referred to in a user-content blog then it must be true, notwithstanding the fact the sunday times has no reference to this quote. I have asked the blog's eiditors to remove it as soon as they have verified that it is in fact a completely false and fictious reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic is not a "user-content blog". It's a valid reliable source with biographies written by respected professional music writers.--Michig (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Some of its content is uploaded by its users for exmaple AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database or for example Your help is appreciatedmost of that content is checked by the blogs editors however in some cases (ie. this one) inaccurate or misleading content slips through their net. might i suggest we leave the issue for a few weeks to see what their editors do with the request to verify this alleged quote.86.179.116.37 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please explain where and how you were able to review every page of every issue of the Sunday Times from 1970? As far as I'm aware there is no online repository for perusal, so further information would enable us to verify your claim that it isn't there. So far you've given none of this information and expect us to take your word over that of Allmusic simply because you say so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, in the case of the biographies, the answer is simply no. These are not user-submitted, they are not editable by readers, and they are credited to individual professional writers. The biographies are not in any way, shape, or form, 'blogs'.--Michig (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Michig that Allmusic is more than just a blog which is why if you search for "affinity" on their site the first result is the notable and real affinity band from the 1990s rather than this non notable bunch of nobodies from the 1970,s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.30 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: look i really do not see what the issue is here. If you so confident that Derek Jewell of the Sunday Times made that comment then please state in what edition of the Sunday Times he made it rather than rely on the hearsay statement from a thrid party  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewell, Derek, The Sunday Times, 1970

message: led by Joe Rosenberg jazz-rockand according to "one of the more stimulating (if underrated) groups of the mid- to late '90s"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think perhaps that might be a different band with the same name?--Michig (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course you are quite right so i have inserted 'also' into the title of this discussion.86.179.116.37 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the US Affinity merit an article please start a separate article. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  (ec) Please feel free to create a new article on this American Affinity. Of course you will need to demonstrate that they do meet WP's notability requirements. Meanwhile as they have no connection with the UK Affinity then the discussion of them on this talk page is moot. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst they have released four albums, are mentioned in the same source, have far better known musicians and are more notable than this band i do not think they are notable enough or worthy of encyclopedic reference. To suggest this band is notable is beyond a joke.86.179.116.37 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what you or I think about any particular band, "notability" on Wikipedia has a specific meaning. This band meets the requirements laid out in WP:BAND. It doesn't matter if there are better or "more notable" bands out in the real world, or on Wikipedia. What I don't understand is your vehemence in wanting this band's article removed. Please stop disrupting this article based purely on your own tastes and opinions. I'm sure your time and effort would be much better used elsewhere on the project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not meet 2 to 12 of the criteria in WP:BAND The only possible requirement it meets is number 1 because of its reliance on the Sunday Times quote which is disputed because nobody has proved the reliablity of that source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the wiki-rules you seem to be relying on. There is only a requirement to meet one of the criteria. This band meets #1, #4, #5 and #6. Once again, could you please explain why you are so hellbent on disrupting this article? So much so that you are prepared to break and bend rules to do so? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Affinity are also an Amercian Jazz band

message: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I keep trying to remove the link to the self-published myspace page but somebody keeps re-inserting it on the basis "the band does not have an official web-site". If the band were in anyway notable they would have an official web-site.86.179.116.37 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop deleting this link. It isn't being used as a reliable source, or indeed any source. There are no references that refer to it. WP:RS does not apply. It's being used as an external link only. Would you please read and understand the rules you are alluding to before taking any more incorrect actions. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ELNO "one should avoid ..... 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace...)" There is also WP:SPAMas the myspace article is simply a plug/advert. Under WP:BLP"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[3]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links.--Michig (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Please top deleting this link, especially when trying to use WP:ELNO as a reason. You've obviously missed the first line of that guideline "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry but what makes the myspace advert "an official page" Surely for copyright reasons alone a link to the myspace page should be removed as there is nothing on it which suggests the pages authors own the copyright on any of the material on it - unless of course you know different?86.179.116.37 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't know different. I'm assuming good faith that it is. Likewise you know no different either. The fact remains that the link is well within the rules just like 2500+ other articles which use the MySpace template. At this stage given your disinclination to explain your reasons for your disruption, the fact that you are ignoring all the advice given you, the fact that you are prepared to break the rules to attempt to disrupt this article. All I can think is that you are a troll. As such I don't think it's worth any more of my time continuing this pointless discussion. Please do not remove the link again otherwise I'll be forced to report you for breaking the 3RR rules. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem extremely incivil and incapable of rational discussion so please stop interfering.86.179.116.37 (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you to whoever removed the link as it does violate just about every wikipedia policy.86.179.116.37 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that's ok buddy I hate seeing musicians copyright being abused - even if those musicians are a bunch of old nobodies. Yet another reason to delete this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.30 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What copyright violation would that be? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The myspace link broadcasts their music with no sign of any consent or permission from the creators of that music so unless you are one of the band there is no way you can prove that content does not violate their copyright149.254.56.30 (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it does or not is irrelevant. You have no proof either way. The fact of the matter is that it is portrayed to be the official MySpace page, that's enough to meet WP:EL. Any artists streaming music from Myspace make an assurance that they have a right to do so. The fact that the site is still there and hasn't been pulled by Angel Air goes some way to demonstrating that it is legitimate. Meanwhile I suppose you could always email Angel Air records and ask/report it, after all it's their bailiwick not ours. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: rubbish it is not official . Tom Dick or Harry could open a myspace page and fill it with stolen obscure music from an unknown band made 40 years ago149.254.219.14 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And your evidence that it isn't official is what? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the myspace blog has nothing on it which states its official or that its author is the creator of its subject matter. It is not run by one of the band members, it has no official address or contact telephone number, in any event it is not for me to prove a negative. The burden of verification lies with whoever puts forward or publishes the fact etc that needs verification. The link should be removed until somebody can prove its official as there is nothiing to indicate it is. Likewsie for all the alleged quotes  they need to be verified - not by me because it is not me.149.254.51.24 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: my space advert

message: unless somebody can prove when and where she said this then i have taken it out as it is anything but verifiable and more than likely a misrepresentation from those with an extremely biased point of view.86.179.116.37 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it with a cn tag in order that someone better informed than you or I can supply the reference you require. So far the only person demonstrating "an extremely biased point of view" is yourself, along with your IP sockpuppet friend. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed it as nobody has cited any reference for it ofr over 2 years. Surely anyone with common sense can see this entire article is a non-encyclopedic self-promo 92.232.61.182 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DJ Anne Nightingale's proclamation that Linda Hoyle was "the girl most likely to succeed in 1970"

message: I have taken out what is a fairly obvious spam link (which according to the history of this article was inserted by Kurt Adkins the very person who designed the cover for a re-hash of songs written by other artists.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.37 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: www.airmailrecordings

message: One thing that doesn't appear to have been mentioned in this entry - or its stub - is the rarity of Affinity's 1970 eponymous debut album on the Vertigo label (Vertigo 6360 004). The 2020 Record Collector Guide currently lists the album - in its original gatefold sleeve - as worth £400 in mint condition, while Discogs' median price is £243.60, with the highest example selling for £584.27. https://www.discogs.com/Affinity-Affinity/release/1174126 
The album was also re-pressed in Italy and Germany in 2000, although these copies are worth less. 
Others may disagree, but I would suggest that the rarity of the album - and how sought after it is - adds to the band's notability. Paul Strange (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rarity of Affinity's debut album

message: I'm suspicious of that picture containing Linda Hoyle. I saw the band 10 feet from the stage, and that doesn't look anything like her - in fact, it appears to be a male. What are the bona fides? HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  band photo