Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misery (Australian band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misery (Australian band)

Misery (Australian band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable Nanabozho 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Detailed, well-written, but ultimately without any definite claim of notability or any sources to back up such a claim. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Non-notable australiacruft. --Tomgoestocollege 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with the disclosure that I am not objective, and that it's a complicated situation with the Misery (band) (Based in Minneapolis, MN, US.) article also being recently deleted. I was involved with defending that article and lost. I guess you should pretty much ignore my vote. However, I looked at the standards, and this article, and while I disagree with the standards, and that's perhaps a discussion for another day, I believe the standards call for a deletion. Nanabozho 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you disagree, why encourage this type of action?
  • Keep. Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture.[1] That's all the notability guideline requires. Hesperian 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hesperian - SatuSuro 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Verified. Notable. What exactly are you looking for? Sources? OK, but that's not a reason to delete, that's reason to add some. Rocket000 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep How can you avoid Hesperian? Twenty Years 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - without verifiable sources, this aticle should be deleted, unless good sources are found. How are we even supposed to know if the discography is real or made up without any sources. All I could find on google were self published sites like myspace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamchrisryan (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hesperian, who found one source - others are offline. Orderinchaos 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. This is just to prove a point. GlassCobra (Review) 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep No reason to delete. ILovePlankton(L—n) 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would urge voters to please assume good faith when giving reasons for votes. - Che Neuvara 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not an "assumption": he has admitted it. Hesperian 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I would call the nomination misguided, to say the least, but I think the wording of the message replicated below indicates that this user nominated this article for what he believes are legitimate reasons. That's part of AGF: accepting that, even if something seems far-fetched, it is not necessarily mal-intentioned. - Che Nuevara 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I've just read this user's blog. I'm redacting my previous comments. - Che Nuevara 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and not just because I wrote the article. The original deletion nomination is frivilous: Here's the message left by the nominator on my talk page:
    "I have nominated the article, Misery (Australian band) for deletion from Wikipedia. You can access the process by visiting the article. I have done this not because I am deletionist or a senior writer for Wikipedia, or because I believe in destroying your work, as some do at Wikipedia.
    I am doing it for a variety of reasons:
    To learn how the deletion process works.
    As a reaction to the recent deletion of the Misery (band) article. (Based in Minneapolis, MN., US.) I admit this difficult to defend reason but offer up my wish to learn about the internal problems of Wikipedia by responding to the Minneapolis band’s deletion by attempting to delete the Australian band.
    As an attempt to review Wikipedia’s deletion policy as it relates to alternative and all bands.
    I am blogging on this situation. The blog is accessible through my user page.
    Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Nanabozho 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"}}
Articles should not be deleted just to prove a point. The band released four albums and existed for 15 years; unfortunately most of any reference material is offline and can't be linked but the discography is definitely not invented. --BrianFG 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

:::coming upon this by chance, i have warned the editor mentioned that this constitutes disruption. 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. They seem notable enough within the Australian heavy metal scene for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Adequate sources and notability to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 22:11, 3 October 2007 (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.