Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Afflicted (American band)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Afflicted (American band)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Already found no evidence of notability even through online archives that had plenty of useless results, so the "offline search required" feels more like a formality and an assumption than an entirely reasonable PROD rejection, but here we are. This band has no appearance of connection to even a notable record label so I sincerely doubt they were getting placements in anything other than random fanzines which wouldn't be considered reliable sources. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gnewspapers doesn't bring up anything about them. Gsearch brings up what seem to be full length videos of basically their albums playing, but nothing else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gbooks has nothing for a band, only hits on various people affected by things. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - poorly sourced, but if it's true that "The album was named one of the Top 10 Records of 1985 by GQ Magazine," this band seems notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key being "if it's true" which I have been unable to confirm via any search I've done. And I don't know that one top-ten album placement from one magazine would be enough for a whole band; for the album, sure, but that's a much smaller scope. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any meaningful coverage in sources. Popcornfud (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with sadness, because I cringe every time |we have to delete a band or album article. On the plus, there seems to be some evidence of recognition. On the minus, they were primarily a cover band, there is great difficulty finding citations, and there is scant evidence of touring. I am not opposed to userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (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.