Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (2nd nomination)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes[edit]

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

I've let this sit for a few weeks, but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability. This still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBAND. We have no idea when the group was formed. The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label. The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources, and from posters, concert dates, and other materials explicitly not allowed to be used by WP:NMUSIC to show notability. There is WP:COATRACKing - there is no need to use three sources to show a band member left.There is nothing established that shows this group as anything but local, and in fact, much of the material establishes them as exactly local: they had no discernible influence on any other act, no one has ever covered their music. Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative. Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability, nor, per WP:NOTINHERITED is the fact that some notable third-party had a flyer from the band that ended up in his estate, or that their co-producer won an award with another group. These are not things that an actual notable band has to have included in their article to show notability. The amount of work put in has not shown what is required for the article to pass the relevant guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan post made at 19:23 31 July 2016. Quote:- "I've let this sit for a few weeks". So you have let this sit. OK then. So you say Quote:- "but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". Well, let's have a look at what's been going on with it since User:David Fuchs removed the AFD tag at 19:17, 15 July 2016‎. Well, User IP 51.9.15.175 to date has made 3 edits. These related to him writing Music for Film & TV. Being a Senior Lecturer in Audio Production. And his recordings were featured in the 2016 Video Promo for Belarus writer Sasha Romanova. Then we have an edit by User:Sitush at 23:21, 22 July 2016, who had changed "passed away" to "died". Then we have an edit by User:Karl Twist (That's me) at 10:26, 25 July 2016, adding "Two songs ended up on the AK 79 compilation". And at 10:54, 25 July 2016, I think I added Mastering work done. This is to indicate what I believe may be the arrival of a release. I also had tidied up the ref link that User IP 51.9.15.175 had put in. Then User:Warpozio had changed WEA to Warner Music Group. You say "filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". I say that's a massive overstatement!!!! You say Quote:- "The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label". What's that got to do with a band being notable or not??? Their label RTC has a catalogue of more than 185 releases. It also had artists like Dead Kennedys, UB40, Gerry and the Pacemakers released on it. The label also had the distinction of having a first, with the artists on their label having both an album and single at no 1 on the NZ charts. See Billboard, September 19, 1981, page 72. So this is not a self-released album. There's no need for you to even mention Indie label! Also the group received an IRANZ award for their mini album. You say Quote:- "The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources". Actually, the band has been covered quite well 3 times at least in Rip It Up. The band were featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. The article about them also featured a portrait of the group. At current the article sits at National Library of New Zealand [1]. Before anyone even contemplates deleting an article. When it is known that such documentation of a subject exists, the responsible thing to do check it out! You say Quote:- "Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability". Actually if you could please go back and re-examine this, Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass. New Zealand Music This is a discography that covers 1230 audio recordings from a period of 1958 to 1987. It's not as you put it 1 band out of over 1200. It is a collection of 1230 recordings out of 10,000s of recordings made in New Zealand. It is a historically significant collection of recordings by New Zealand musicians of various genres. See Christchurch City Libraries * You say Quote:- "Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative". Yes some of the article is post-band. But not over half. Please go back and have a look. Count the words! And "speculative", where????? And the post-activities are worth including as they are on thousands of other Wikipedia articles. Other stuff you've mentioned isn't really necessary to respond to. You have, I believe, been somewhat selective in how you've approached this. That's OK but, I do hope you're not being intentional in some of the things you have stated. You're grossly incorrect on much of what you have stated. BTW: The flyer thing is not an attempt to add to notability. It's just for historical interest and for the interest of the reader. Thanks Karl Twist 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND and none of the 50+ sources make any attempt to provide significant notability, quite possibly much of it is original research. Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Ajf773, Quote:-, you say "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user". Ok, assuming you're referring to me, I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Now the editing that I have done in Wikipedia is only a fraction of some of the more dedicated editors and contributors. But, in my way I try to contribute a bit. So I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Earlier this year, I came across Alma Lloyd. This was up for deletion. Before I got in and did some improving, it looked like this. After some editing, I got it to here. Then, I came across the Ellis Brooks Auto Center which was nominated for deletion. Here is where the article was when I started. After 10 edits, I managed to get it to here. Of course I voted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Brooks Auto Center to keep. Then there was Patrick Pinney. Now that was some work. Before I started on it, it looked like this. After I did around 23 edits from April 6 to April 21, the article ended up looking like this. Of course User talk:Stewader91 and User talk:Mkrgolf did a couple of minor corrections. And as you can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pinney, I became quite involved in the discussion, and voted to keep. And as you can see I got involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Lloyd discussion. So as you can see, I have an interest in improving articles that are worthy and have notability. Same as what I am doing here. Also Fancruft shouldn't be used here. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD discussion is not about all the other articles you've worked on. We are talking about this specific band article. How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ok Ajf773, of course I know the AFD discussion is not about "all the other articles" I have worked on. And I have only shown a fraction of what I have worked on. But as you said, "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT". I have just shown you where my interest lies. Just in case someone reading your post gets the wrong impression and thinks I'm someone fanatical or overly fond of this group. Or just in case some thinks I am in a moment of one-artist obsession. That's why showed you want I have done. Now you ask the question " How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?". Well there are >>> articles about them in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Dominic Free. They're mentioned here >>> also in Rip It Up again Rumours. They are also mentioned in another article in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Louise Chunn. I've come across another Rip It Up article that is in photo format as well as another mag / paper article similar. The band was >>> featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. This is at the National Library of New Zealand Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes. Their mini album release >>> was on a significant independent label RTC. The label is also notable and historically significant in New Zealand for a number of resons. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP! Also the duo Desire that Gary Havoc was a member of had their mini album released on the WEA label. There's a bit about Gary Havoc & Desire >>> here on the Elsewhere website. There's also other stuff about there about them in archives. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria. Obviously this fails on 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 or 10. I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11. Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12. They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours (let alone overseas tours) fails 4. None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles, fails 6. Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7. That leaves 1, which requires multiple, non-trivial, published works that are both independent of the musician themselves and reliable. Based on the sources you provided, blogs are not a reliable source. 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence, it's always been a gig guide and interviews with up and coming artists does not grant anyone instant notability. The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source), I have no idea what elsewhere is. The article by Louise Chunn is about XTC, I'm sure you've heard of them. That alone is not sufficient enough to pass criteria 1. WP:FANCRUFT is a good representation of what this article is purporting. Ajf773 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply* You say "WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria." Well it's passed on some!
* You said " I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11". Ok Ajf773, we're talking 1978 to 1981 or abouts. That's over 35 years ago. And I'm sorry but whether you have or haven't heard them on the radio or can or can't remember them is not an indication of them failing #11. If you were, we'd be using you as a reference.
* You say "Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12". Again, how would you know? From what I understand, the band has appeared on television on various occasions back then.
* You say "They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours". Well actually the research I have done and referring to advertising material shows that the group had toured the North Island of New Zealand. Between Auckland and Wellington and multiple places in between. Perhaps they didn't do the South Island. Being Auckland city boys and the South Island being a bit of a wild and cold place, they may have decided not to risk it.
* You say " Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7." Actually, they were prominent on the scene. Very prominent at the time. Just as The Terrorways were and others in the Auckland Rock Scene.
* You say " None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles". Well, that may not be correct and I'm sure it isn't. I have a feeling that in time Gary Havoc may be notable to have his own article. Graeme Scott who played with Satellite Spies from 1991 to 1997, and from 2000 to 2001 former spies, and a band called Rated X is a possible candidate if more research turns up other bands. BTW: He also played on an EP by his daughter Kendall Lee.[2], [3]. But Gary Hunt is definitely a good candidate for consideration. He has a resume that reads out like the "Who's Who" in NZ rock history. Past and current. Hunt was in The Terrorways [4]. Recorded with them too. He played and recorded with Gregg McKenzie [5]. In 2015, he was playing in New Zealand in a group called led by former Pop Mechanix and Coconut Rough frontman Andrew Snoid', called Andrew McLennan & The Underminers. [6]. Later Hunt would later work with Hamish Kilgour.[7] They worked together and released the Hollie Fullbrook / Tiny Ruins Hurtling Through EP.[8], [9]. Another group Hunt had been playing in some time in the 2010s was The Wonderfish Collective.[10] They were a 15 piece group.[11].
* You say " 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence,". Well, it may not be. But it is reliable source ads it is referred to and referenced many times. Please have a look at the Rip it Up page here in Wikipedia. It says by the mid 80s, they were printing 30,000 copies. Also it was unequalled as for many years as a New Zealand source of information on rock music. The back-catalogue of the mag "provides an unrivalled reference for information about the history of New Zealand's rock music". Comparing it to the Rolling Stone Magazine is like comparing Arthur Lee to The Rolling Stones and saying Arthur Lee has no influence. Now Please go back and read the article by Louise Chunn because it is NOT about XTC. The XTC aricle is by George Kay. The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes article is by Dominic Free as is The Terrorways article. Gary Havoc (((I'm starting to think this guys name is a curse, I'm nuts for spending this much time on this))) and his crew are also included in an article called 5 New Bands in Auckland by Louise Chunn. So once again, the This is XTC article is by George Kay. The article about Gary Havoc & Crew is by Dominic Free. The other article that features them 5 New Bands in Auckland is by Louise Chunn.
* You said "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)", Am I now reading this correctly, you're saying "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)"??? Yes most news papers are corporate friendly but that's not the issue here. And I know that's not what you meant. You need to re-think what you have just said here as I'm going to have to say that thousands and thousands and thousands of edits in Wikipedia will have to be changed. BTW: The Auckland Star ran from March 1870 to 16 August 1991. Have a guess what the circulation was ? Sorry, but you haven't really shown anything that proves the band to non-notable. I'm sorry for saying this. And you're still using that " WP:FANCRUFT" again. This should not be thrown around like that.Karl Twist (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and Ajf773. Frankly I'm surprised the previous nomination was "No consensus", 1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes, all based on wiki policy, seems clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi DerbyCountyinNZ. First of all please check your facts. There were 2 keeps. I was one. I am not the creator. User talk:Andru0711 was the creator!. Article was created at 19:48, 2 April 2016‎. I came in at 08:57, 20 June 2016, and started fixing it up to improve. In the previous nomination .... You also said Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). I asked you where the Please tell me where the COI is????. Please check the facts. I just want to straighten this part. Many thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I have done a good amount of looking up on the band. I've been around for a while now and I know the historical value of this band. If it had no value, I wouldn't bother with it. The nominator for this intended deletion is being carefully selective in their wording in an attempt to prove a point. A previous accusation by MSJapan made at 14:32, 14 July 2016, shown here, "The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. "
was totaly incorrect and uncalled for. Strange that this should be thrown about. I'll reply to the nominators statements later. Got other things to do. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately the band is still below the notability line for the reasons cited above, despite all the work, which is a pity. NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi there NealeFamily, welcome to the discussion for the deletion of Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. You say "the reasons cited above". Well, over a period of time, I'd like to show you that a good deal of the reasons above are not valid and some are (I hope) unintentionally misleading. I'll come back and explain a few thing that relate to this band and also what I believe is a misunderstanding of things. So I'll be commenting on some of the comments above. It's also interesting to note that two of the three voters to delete, plus the nominator have come back here in quick time. One of deletion voters attempted to back up his / her vote but saying something totally incorrect - " Suspected either COI or COPYVIO" Seems a bit misleading there. Karl Twist (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, Karl, shut up about COI/COPYVIO; it prefaces every single argument you make, it has nothing to do with the content, and it hs nothing to do with whether the article should be kept or not. I made that comment in response to the state of the article here, which was unsourced and had not been substantially changed from its creation by an SPA a year previous. So where did the information come from if I couldn't find a source for it? Either another source that wasn't cited, or someone who had inside information. You never showed otherwise; you only screamed (repeatedly) that I was wrong. So I'm tired of you constantly claiming that the article should be kept because "COI/COPYVIO wasn't proven." The article was nominated for not meeting WP:NBAND. You had several weeks (your "period of time") to "prove" the group met NBAND, and they have not. The policy specifically prohibits usage of the types of sources you have used as indicators of notability, and I told you that in the last AfD, but you went ahead and filled the article with inappropriate material anyway. As an example, you cited an award to a concert flyer. Moreover, your opinion of the band is irrelevant - if you cannot show it by acceptable sources, your opinion on a subject does not matter. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Irrespective of any past dealings you may have had with the user, telling another Wikipedian to "shut up" about anything really isn't cool in any situation. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's funny how everyone else's conduct is consistently excused except mine. I was pretty sure baseless arguments weren't cool, either, nor repeatedly accusing people of being "carefully selective in wording to make a point", "misleading", and "totally incorrect" without proof, and that's only in this ANI. Yet if I go complain about getting templated on ANI for no reason, I'm told to "grow a pair." So which is it? Do we treat each other fairly, or do only certain people have that privilege? There's also something called unnecessary provocation, so I'm not buying the righteous indignation thing. MSJapan (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan (post 17:23, 3 August 2016 ), actually I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about DerbyCountyinNZ who said COPYVIO. You said WP Hoax. Thanks. I wasn't referring to you. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why I believe this nomination for deletion is wrong. I will soon be adding reasons for my belief that this Articles for deletion/Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (2nd nomination) is wrong. I will add it in 2 parts. The first is why the band is notable. The second will be why I think the nomination is incorrect. So I'll add what I will below here. Other comments unrelated to this could be posted above here if possible. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reason #1. When MS Japan nominated the article for deletion at 04:14, 19 June 2016, it looked like this. Yes it was pretty tragic! I can understand articles not having references and being hastily put together attracting the deletion nomination. I decided to investigate. Not only did I discover that the band was notable, I realized the "possible WP:HOAX" on MSJapan's 4:14, 19 June 2016 nomination was incorrect. To the nominators credit, when people are busy editing and doing other stuff, they may overlook certain things and not have the time to investigate a bit further. Well I did. In my follow up Reason #2, I'll go in to what my research has turned up. The first vote to delete was by Ajf773 at 09:01, 20 June 2016, which was only 4 mins after my edit at 08:57, 20 June 2016. And at that time, the page looked like this. So even if Ajf773 had looked at the page, the changes were only small. The only 2 references were from WorldCat and Discogs. Here [12] and here [13]. The second delete vote didn't arrive till after the 3rd relist at 01:19, 5 July 2016. This one was by User:DerbyCountyinNZ who at 03:58, 5 July 2016, said " Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written).". Well, by the time DerbyCountyinNZ added the deletion vote, the article looked like this. Ok, possibly poorly written. DerbyCountyinNZ could have a point there. I'm not the tidiest guy around or a good proof reader. But I can't understand where the COI or COPYVIO applies. A following deletion vote but a good'n busy editor in a following vote mentioned "consensus". Yes it seemed to be heading that way. Sadly the previous votes sometimes ward off others from investigating further. Now the discussion was closed by User:David Fuchs at 19:17, 15 July 2016. And 16 days later at 19:23, 31 July 2016, it has been nominated for deletion a second time by the original nominator. Coincidentally in the same order, the other 2 deletion voters from the first round have voted to delete. For all their good intentions is it possible that they are just voting again because they believe what they did the first time? They haven't had time to do the research I have and look at the historical positioning of the band as well.
Now we're at the second nomination. I disagree with the first deletion vote by Ajf773 at 21:01, 31 July 2016. The group meets some of the criteria. Also the statement "one self-interested user." is wrong. As is "WP:FANCRUFT", which doesn't even apply here. The next delete vote from DerbyCountyinNZ comes with the statement, "1 keep (the nominator)". What is that ???? Who is that ???? Well, there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes. Also DerbyCountyinNZ said "1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge". Well it wasn't changed to merge! Where was it changed?? The only other post by User:Grutness apart from the 2 that were made was a reply "Yeah, I could support that" to User:Robyn2000's suggestion of "Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then?", quite possibly as a way to save some of the history of the band if the article was deleted. This is a tactic used to preserve sometimes. And Grutness saying "Yeah, I could support that" is not a change to a merge. The weak keep vote stayed there!. So I count 2 Keep, 3 delete, not quite as you put it, "1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes". Now the first nomination was closed and a second one opened 16 days later. Still we haven't had time to access what is in the Auckland Star, a major newspaper (24 March 1870 to 16 August 1991) or others like The New Zealand Herald. Without the Auckland Star, the band is notable. But good to access what is in the article. Karl Twist (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It breaks my heart to say this, but Delete because the band just doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND. It's not possible to negotiate around this - Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were not a significant enough band in the history of New Zealand music. I support adding a brief section to another article, such as Terrorways or something else if it is more relevant. Robyn2000 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Robyn2000, how's it going. So far reliable sources that give an idea of the prominence the band are,
>>> Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
>>> Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
>>> Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014"Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
>>> Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? Are we allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference or does it just have the credibility of a cheap detective magazine?
>>> A good point by User:Grutness as per "Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well, which adds another nod to meeting NBAND." [14].
But, Robyn, before anyone considers the deletion so close to the last nomination, there should be further research. I was going to hope that one of the NZ'ers on Wikipedia might want to hop over to the library, but I'm wondering if New Zealand news papers have any kind of credibility. Ajf773 seems to think not (as far as the Auckland Star is concerned. Please read my replies to this member, see Revision at 14:29, 5 August 2016, as there are things stated by him/her that don't add up. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, my reply to Robyn2000.
>>> The band also got an IRANZ award for their EP.[15] Karl Twist (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Further to the above.
>>> The group is mentioned in Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, as per another member mentioning it. They did "a first:" in New Zealand that is notable. I followed it up. More on this later when I have time. Karl Twist (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, please allow this discussion to continue as I am still researching and will attempt to come forth with further info over next week or two. thanks Karl Twist (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be some information in Audioculture which is worth including. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: Do we consider it RS? It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently; which is too bad, because it looks like an interesting resource. It appears they have financial oversight due to funding, but that's not content-related. Anyhow, there's nothing there other than a namedrop that "ex-Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes drummer Graeme Scott was in another band with Deane Sutherland, who started Satellite Spies" (I think; the article is somewhat jumbled, which is why I'm concerned about it in general - this article, by the way, was apparently written within the last day). However, there is neither an entry on the band, nor Gary himself. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be RS itself, but Audioculture kis pretty strict in requiring information to be sourceable, so it would indicate that there is published information available on the subject. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grutness, thanks for that. I have seen about a half dozen references and bits and pieces about Gary Havoc and the ex-members. I'll check the rest out. I came across some website that archived Rip It Up, besides this one. I have to find it again as it had more stuff about Gary Hunt. Karl Twist (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan, Quote:- "It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently". Not quite so! Sorry, I have to disagree here. The site is accurate. The editors there are well experienced in their field. One of the editors there is none other than John Dix, who is the author of the Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988. That's the book that goes a long way to confirm the notability of Gary Havoc & Co. The book confirms "The group is also notable for making history for being one of the first, if not the very first New Zealand band to self-finance their record and be successful with it. This act created a definite flow on effect for other bands." Yes you are correct that there isn't at this time a page for Gary Havoc or some members of his band. I have a feeling that there will be one very soon for Gary Hunt though. Both Havoc and his members are referred to multiple times and the entry (Which I have seen) that was done on the 6th is proof that there is on going contributions being made that will continue to feature the group and it's members. What needs to be understood is that even without the confirmation of their historical status by John Dix's Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, articles about them in the Auckland Star and historical New Zealand magazines, the group is definite of New Zealand Rock history. Not only for the members that went through the group to play with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies, Hamish Kilgour, Hollie Fullbrook etc is the group of important historical value, they were part of the scene that influenced other bands. Anyway Gary Havoc recorded for 2 record labels that quality him RTC Records, and WEA. Another thing is that Google and other search engine don't always turn up valuable info straight away. Sometimes you have to look in another way. The other day I found some info on Gary Havoc and Co. that was in JPG / Pic format but I lost it. Looing for related stuff can sometimes turn up stuff you wouldn't otherwise get. It's a bit like aiming to the left of the target and hitting the object beside it to fall on the intended target. Karl Twist (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter - content from an established editor or professional writer in an unmoderated medium is not reliable. This is spelled out by WP:QS which says, Questionable sources are those that...lack meaningful editorial oversight. WP:SPS further indicates as na exception to the "expert rule", Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You are doing nothing here but constantly arguing semantics with editors instead of arguing policy adherence with relation to content. You claim the band had an influence, but you haven't found a single act that says "we were influenced by Gary Havoc." An unreleased recording for a label does not meet WP:NBAND - it requires two major releases. They didn't have that. RTC was not a major label, and there's nothing in their article that proves that. I'd note you wrote said article, so what you're doing is creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of superficial notability; you're claiming that because there's an article on A, A is notable, so B is notable because it's associated with A, and A is also notable because of B. That's not how notability works. I also notice you like using the word "probably" in your edits to make assumptions about information you don't actually have available - that's WP:OR. You can't make a non-notable group notable, especially by relying on inappropriate sources. I assume you're also going to turn around and write Gary Hunt (as you insinuate) and then claim notability via association again. You simply aren't editing within policy - you're too busy writing your opinions to bother to understand how you should be editing. MSJapan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has written for Audioculture, I can confirm that it does have editorial oversight and is quite thoroughly moderated. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll keep it in mind, then, although it wasn't of use here. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to (MSJapan post: 17:30, 7 August 2016) The requirements are met! Yes there are some references that can't be used as the main backbone for the article. These references, the sites, sources they come from appear on Wikipedia by the thousands in thousands of articles. They are only there to give breadth to the article and add other interesting facts as many articles have.
The reliable sources so far include ....
A)) Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
B)) Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
C)) Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
D)) Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014 "Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
E)) Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? If it was a morning or mid-day paper, would it be more reputable? I'm at a total loss here ????
F)) Pages Page 219, Page 294 of Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988 BY Dix (This describes the group making history in NZ as a first for self-financing their mini-album which opened doors for other artists. BTW: I may have another book by a Kiwi author.
G)) Mini Album Havoc RTC RTS 71012 (1979) on the NZ RTC label. A highly successful, notable and history making (See Billboard October 11, 1980, Page 58) NZ independent label.WorldCat, Discogs (they got an award for it)
H)) Mini album Desire (Gary Havoc & Suzy Devine) on the WEA label (major label). See Desire: Broken Heart at Elsewhere website.
I'll reply to other content in your pos (dated 17:30, 7 August 2016) later on. I have to say that there are things that you are saying that don't make sense. Karl Twist (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead as there's still not enough actually convincing coming from the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 8 August 2016 (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.