Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Revenge (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. As is almost always the case, the crux of this discussion is whether or not this band meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A large portion of this discussion is not in fact about that subject but rather mudslinging between the participants or discussion of aspects of the article not relevant to the reasons it was nominated for deletion. Of course all such remarks were disregarded when making this close. Once all that material is discounted, it appears that consensus and policy favors the view that the article be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My Revenge (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Local band of questionable notability. Provided references are all primary sources or fanzines. Due to common name, Google search results are problematic - however, adding the modifier "My Revenge" "Spencer Crispe" (Crispe is the lead singer, and is also editing the article) Google news shows only one result from a local paper - a standard search shows a lot of primary sources, social media, sales links, directory listings, and unreliable sources, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I worked for Big Heavy World www.bigheavyworld.com in Burlington, Vermont. Big Heavy World is the Vermont Music Library and Shop. It is the largest archival collection of Vermont-based music in the state. I am a Vermont underground music historian, and also quite knowledgeable about this band, Vermont venues, Vermont music history, particularly focusing on the past 30 years. I am working to chronicle notable Vermont encyclopedia-worthy artists in Wikipedia as a volunteer.
 * Not a local band - Band is a national and international touring act for a full decade. Moreover, band is a professionally published band on a widely distributed record label www.thorprecords.com. Furthermore, numerous bands on this record label have Wikipedia entires - See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madball;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_for_Blood; and
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheer_Terror
 * These are just a few of the bands on the same record label, also with Wikipedia articles.
 * Additionally, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Static_Age This is a notable band also from Vermont, similar stature, no maintenance tags.
 * See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(band) - This article has citations which are not questioned nor maintenance templates, and it is consistent with numerous other Entries.
 * My Revenge is also notable as being the first punk and underground band from Vermont to tour internationally. If you look at history of page - Spencer Crispe was involved for ease of copyright in obtaining image uploads. Sources are characterized as reliable and found within innumerable other Wikipedia entires - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(band) Did google searching before creating article and found band toured in Nova Scotia, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Japan. Meets and exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

— Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per lack of notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The issue is the lack of substantial source material which is both independent and reliable. -- Jayron  32  05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Weak delete per new sources. The allmusic blurb is nice, but not enough in my opinion to meet the "Significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG.  When all of the reliable writing about a subject that exists is a paragraph, that isn't "significant".
 * A paragraph is plenty for telling detail and opinion, and these would certainly be used in any good article on this subject. How then can it be insignificant? It's not all the reliable writing that exists: Exclaim! is an accepted RS, vetted by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE for instance. Its review really is brief, and informal, and yet knowledgeable. KindaMuzik has been cited by VPRO and The Wire. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it isn't. Significance of coverage requires a level of depth that I don't see in those sources.  Produce a longer reliable source, and I could be convinced otherwise.  -- Jayron  32  17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel i need to. your view is out of step with consensus views on the subject, as per WP:BASIC, WP:CORPDEPTH etc., and while i want to say you are entitled to your opinion i am uncomfortable with trying to form local consensuses based not on some well-reasoned exception but merely on an idiosyncratic personal view. However, I do appreciate that you have moved from your original position. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ******On the contrary, both of the links you gave require source material to be substantial/significant.  I don't find the level of coverage so far provided to be substantial/significant.  I'm quite aware of what the Wikipedia standards are, and it does not appear, to me, that the subject of this article meets it yet.  -- Jayron  32  19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)*******You don't appear to have read the links, frankly, & are not aware of what the standards are. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)*******Jayron, you seem a very capable article writer. Could you quote what leads to your reading above? I see the reading and the pages as obviously incompatible. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial..." Also, would you find these sources useful in a decent article on the subject? If so, they are significant coverage. Even selecting the work for review is itself significant. You might almost say these outlets have found the act "notable" ;) Following your view there would be no problem substituting all instances of "significant" with "substantial" in guidelines, perhaps with a minimum wordcount specified! :)  86.44.24.82 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Band has allmusic.com guide entry. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/my-revenge-p657423. To characterize band as a "local band" shows wilful ignorance of content of article and facts. Multiple albums. Characterizing them as local band likely shows bias. Question as to abusive editing by Mike Wazowski in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment and especially - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment. User MikeWazowski also violated wikipedia standard by a retaliatory nomination fo deletion. User may know subject article creator and have personal bias also in violation of wikipedia standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC) — Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Vermont Hardcore Punk's allegations are spurious. I left warning messages on his talk page after he twice removed the AfD notice from the article {, ) and has continually removed maintenance templates from the article without correcting the problems (in addition to the two instances already linked, see also, , ). I have a long history of editing on Wikipedia, and this is just another case of a questionable article I flagged for deletion, nothing more. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to MikeWazowki above: - I have made even further improvements to this article to your disregard. Your editing and nomination for deletion is in violation Wikipedia guidelines for conflict of interest and bias. The proper thing to do was to add comments about my improvements to the article on the talk page, which you did not before disruptively placing back the maintenance tags. Your arguments are patently vacuous and already I've warned you about the various Wikipedia guidelines you have violated. I unfortunately have to report your vandalism to this article, coupled with your conflict of interest. The fact that you play the card of having edited for sometime for Wikipedia means nothing in this context because the length of years of your editing is only as meritorious as its quality. Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest - "If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits" You have a conflict of interest, and bias with regards to your relationship to this article and therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines should cease the vandalism and disruptive edits and "step back." Thank you. Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting tedious - the only "further improvements" you've made are the addition of the same link six times into the text, as well as some internal links. However, that link not only offers no corroboration for any of the claims you cite, it also appears to fail as a reliable source, as it's a user editable site. As to your threat of reporting me for vandalism, as I've stated several times on other pages, please give that a try. It will fail spectacularly. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, my main issue which I have written about on the talk page, but will reiiterate here is as follows: The chronology giving rise to this dispute as I see it is 1) You put maintenance tags up (an obvious, welcome, and necessary component of Wikipedia), 2) I made an effort to address the maintenance tags, thought I did, and removed them. 3) You became angry and nominated the article for deletion. I believe this was retaliatory and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for AfD. Moreover, it was unconstructive and unfair for an editor to do that, particularly without communicating with me and giving me even a modicum of time to work to address the issues. If you felt that I did not sufficiently address the issues in the maintenance tags to justify removal, then you should have discussed that with me, the author, on the Talk Page and afforded me the opportunity to address them. We could work collaboratively and construtively to address the tags you put up and I was happy to do that, particularly if afforded the time. Instead, as I see it, you just reactively nominated it for deletion, which, amongst other facts that have transpired here, was out of bias, retaliation and conflict of interest in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to propose a dispute resolution - If you will work with me to keep the article from this deletion, I will work as expeditiously as possible to address the issues raised with the current tags. I am affiliated with www.bigheavyworld.com, the large Vermont music archive. I can address the "improper references to the self-published sources tag" by putting up new photograph images disconnected from the subject. I certainly can also work to improve the links; and I do have newspaper articles through the archive which can be used to strengthen the sources - I just need some time (a week or 2). It is my hope that this proposal will be amenable to you and that our participation in this can come to be constructive and positive together. Sincerely, Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet notability guidelines for bands. Sources quoted are not reliable and / or independent. QU TalkQu 19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that notability guidelines are not met here - there is no evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly referenced. Does not satisfy the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep allmusic review KindaMuzik exclaim.ca allmusic employs professional critics for its writeups. it is a RS for reviews. in fact, no part of it is user-editable. & VHP has a point about Thorp Records as an indicator of notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.44.55.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I note MikeWazowski is edit-warring in order to affix a silly and unjustified tag while simultaneously ignoring the content of my edit. Edit-warring is against something called a policy around here, i believe, while "comment on the content, not the contributor" is perhaps more of a maxim. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — 86.44.24.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I note someone is editing without logging in, trying to create the false impression that multiple editors objecting to this - they are not. Also, SPA tags are allowed, and in cases like this, encouraged. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're stating Vermont Hardcore Punk is editing from a dublin, ireland IP with a completely different style? interesting. i'm plainly not an SPA by any definition. you are an edit-warrior and a rather foolish assumer of bad faith who is, it seems, incapable of debating on the merits, resorting instead to violating guidelines, policies and common sense good practice because you feel that politically you can get away with it. In short, you are the drop-off in editorship in one figure. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And since you can't argue the merits, you're going into personal attack territory. Very classy. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - allmusic.com is reliable reference and through examination of other wikipedia band entries, record label information has been accepted definitively as a reliable source. this at least fully satisfies the expectations of WP:V as well as meeting the first criteria of WP:BAND. reference to thorprecords.com meets criteria 5 of WP:BAND as many on the label's roster are quite notable in the hardcore punk music scene. article does need more links to it. administrator take note, in reading history this article should not have been proposed for deletion to begin with. while MikeWazowski may not have bias, his conduct throughout surely is suspect of personal bias. wikipedia is not a muscle flexing witch hunt, and MikeWazowski's suggestion that wikipedia editor above was used to create a false impression of multiple objections, only to be disproved by it being revealed it was a dublin, ireland IP, further confirms that MikeWazowski has a personal COI and should not be editing article period. based on revision history and current maintenance tags, deletion seems an excessive solution to currently minor issues. would like to see improvement in citations, but any lack of citations is certainly not to the degree in this instance as to warrant deletion. keep article and continue to improve. references, particularly allmusic.com, are sound. Roshanbo (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Roshanbo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't believe Wazowski has any bias beyond wanting his nom to be successful. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE ON MY KEEP I have edited this article and made improvements. I added some additional references for verifiability and notability purposes, and removed a citation where content was not found.  This page is now linked from at least 3 other articles which should address the "links to page" maintenance tag.  I believe the minor amount of self published content in this article is permissible because it meets criteria 1-5 under WP:SELFSOURCE. Roshanbo (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Allmusic seems to me like an inclusive database of musicians that does't check for notability, much like IMDb. That the subject don't even have a biography (only overview and discography) on Allmusic definitely speaks to its lack of notability. Hence, despite the shaky argument above by two suspect users who have made few edits outside of this discussion, the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. ZZArch  talk to me 05:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My argument is that it is reviewed at allmusic, i gave links to what that means, and i gave two other sources. The reason IMDb is unreliable is because it relies on user-submitted information. please make a report on any users you see as suspect, rather than smearing me merely for editing as an IP. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That you were an SPA at the time I posted my argument can be plainly seen by anyone viewing your contributions, and it is a statement of fact, not belief. That I am smearing you, however, is a groundless accusation and constitutes a personal attack. You have been warned. ZZArch  talk to me 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/86.44.55.100 &etc. What on earth are you babbling about? If you suspect something, the two things to do are make a serious report or keep your mouth shut. Calling me "suspect" because i'm an IP is neither. It's a smear. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the sources reach the level of significant coverage. All music is problematic in as much as it simply a database entry with no biography; the argument that it is a reliable source is moot in that there is not actual biography. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whpq, please engage with my post as 86.44.55.100 above. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked a the sources and the best available is a capsule review of an album. That's far below what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Which source of the three are you referring to? I do not see why three reviews are not sufficient. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I am knowledgeable about subject and article is verifiable and credible. See other Vermont band entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowningman as similar entry - they are another Vermont band from the same record label. Self published content in this instance is permissible b/c it meets criteria 1-5 under WP:SELFSOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.76.38 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — 76.118.76.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep – Squeaks by our notability guidelines, with coverage in multiple independent sources: in Exclaim, Allmusic, and the Burlington Free Press as previously mentioned, as well as several less-mainstream online magazines that cover this genre of music such as Spendid Magazine, Asice e-zine, and Decoy Music. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not convinced by the sources that WP:GNG are met. I'm also disgusted by the blatant spamming of this AFD by individuals with a personal interest in keeping this article online. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should indicate which individuals you are referring to as blatant spammers. I (86.44...) am seeking to keep in this discussion, and would strongly object to such a categorization. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd be one (or possibly all) of them, matey! ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've made a list of additional sources on the article talk page. I'll be asking the people who have commented so far to take a look at them. This isn't my subject area so I can't speak with certainty, but I think all the souces together probably meet GNG now. Cloveapple (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point I more or less do not care about whether the article is kept or deleted; I just want to take note that certain users have been participating in this debate with extremely bad faith, and as a result I am unwatching this page and deletion debate and would simply like to be left in peace. ZZArch  talk to me 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiments. In light of what a mess this Afd has become and because I just removed a reference that completely "failed verification" (thank you for checking and marking that MikeWazowski) I wanted to add that I have checked all of the sources listed below. All but one center on the band and I have put a note by the one source that only mentions them in passing. Cloveapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: List of additional Sources
 * "My Revenge | Less Plot, More Blood: De soundtrack van een oude skatevideo. from online magazine KindaMuzik (Google's machine translation here)
 * Peter Huoppi "On Scene with: My Revenge!" March 2nd 2005 in The Burlington Free Press (behind a paywall at newspaper archive )
 * "Andrew Paley. |"The Static Age (US)" at online magazine Click Zoom Bytes: Art & Politics of Romanian Music (My Revenge is not the main topic, but the opening paragraph has background info on My Revenge.)
 * "My Revenge! – Less Plot, More Blood (CD)" on Neufutur Magazine (Not sure if this should be counted as blog or as magazine. So not sure if it's a good source.)
 * "Splendid Magazine reviews My Revenge:Less Plot, More Blood"
 * a couple more sources mentioned by Paul Erik in his Afd comment above:
 * Asice e-zine
 * Decoy Music Cloveapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are these sources additional to? The ones in the article? 86.44.40.73 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are additions since the Afd was started. The Afd began late on the 26th (UTC). I compiled a list of more sources on the article talk page over the course of January 30th and into the 31st. Two of all these sources were later added to the article by another editor, but the majority are not yet in use. Some other sources were mentioned above on Feb 1st. I listed all of them here as "additional sources" because I realized many participants in this Afd who had already commented may not have seen the article talk page or the mention of these sources. Sorry for any lack of clarity. Cloveapple (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you include the exclaim and allmusic reviews? I guess i still don't really get it. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It should be noted that this article has made considerable improvement since the nom began. I now see more reliable and verifiable sources including online magazines and a newspaper article. There are still several minor improvements needed to this page, but none rising to the level warranting deletion. Article should be kept based on its merits and meeting Wikipedia source guidelines, particularly in light of recent edits & improvements.Thrasher77 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — Thrasher77 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I don't think there is any bias going on here, but at the same time I think the article easily passes guidelines. Note new improvements. I also now see at least 3 outside links to article and more references provided. Band is also notable for its regional and national reputation for political outspokenness in speaking out/activism against sexism, racism and homophobia. My Revenge has been a considerable proponent of gay rights, same sex marriage movement.Doveplusdove1 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Doveplusdove1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please Note + Comment Changes and improvements have been made to Article since nomination began. References / Citations are improved - newspaper article has been added + outside links, among other improvements. One additional source of verifiability was down for several months, but is back up now containing a reliable source which I am going to add to strengthen the article in the next day. My interest is in music, Vermont, and music history and I hope these improvements are duly noted. Thanks a lot!Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the article does not appear to meet any of the criteria which may indicate notability at WP:BAND. Of the provided sources, only one (allmusic) is independent of the band and that source provides no biographical information.  All other sources are excluded under WP:MUSICBIO #1. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (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.