User talk:Carburetor Dung

Welcome!

Hello, Carburetor Dung!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help. Has a list of maintenance tasks you can do.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Urgency of referencing

The Mercurymen (Canadian band) needs to have references very quickly. It is vulnerable to deletion even though it has just been restored. I have tried, and failed, to find even a single reference which passes WP:42. I am many 'pages' in to a Google search and failed completely. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I understand the page has already been deleted (again). I will look into references today and get back to you. I apologize for the delay, I dont check in here that often.

For the record, i dont contest the necessity of stringent reference protocols.

Thanks for reaching out

N. Carburetor Dung (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

At the bottom of this message there is a short list i came up with after a Google search of

"The Mercurymen Toronto".

I have divided the list into three sections. The first section possibly contains some links that might be considered non-self-referencing. The second section contains links, most likely considered self-referencing, to the band's Discogs and YouTube pages. (They have three videos.) The third section is a dbpedia list of links, many expired. This is intended to show that at one time there was a stronger internet presence.

I realize many of these do not meet wikipedia guidelines, but i am including them as a first step. Nearly all of the band's mentions in print predate the year 2000, so i will have to dig deeper on those via secondary newspaper archive sites. This will require more time and paid subscriptions.

The band does have hard copies of articles from reputable news sources, pre-2000. Are these of any use?

I would very much appreciate it if you could drop me a reply regarding the contents of this message when you have a moment. I will do some more digging over the next few days. I will check back over the next day or so for your reply.

THE LIST:

https://nowtoronto.com/music/loving-live/

https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the-mercurymen-1

https://www.wavelengthmusic.ca/event/the-mercurymen-heston-rifle/

https://zunior.com/products/changed-a-tribute-to-change-of-heart

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.music.independent/c/fH2FrUElwBA?pli=1

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/5871fcce-a759-4759-9fc3-723db743bc0b

------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.discogs.com/artist/1372391-The-Mercurymen?srsltid=AfmBOopSbH6Rh6UWcr6a_BJ87vj4sI6JQdLs1emAyjFbTgSGUzmUJQGA

https://www.youtube.com/@the-mercurymen/videos

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://dbpedia.org/page/The_Mercurymen_(Canadian_band)

Many thanks for your time and attention to this matter

N. Carburetor Dung (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A quick review of your sources

https://nowtoronto.com/music/loving-live/ — N Not about the band
https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the-mercurymen-1 — N Cannot be used as depreciated as as source see WP:RATEYOURMUSIC
https://www.wavelengthmusic.ca/event/the-mercurymen-heston-rifle/ — N just shows they played a gig
https://zunior.com/products/changed-a-tribute-to-change-of-heart — N only mentions that a band made a tribute version of one song
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.music.independent/c/fH2FrUElwBA?pli=1 — N User generated content including random posts on google groups is not a valid source
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/5871fcce-a759-4759-9fc3-723db743bc0b — Ok as a source, but does not help show notability
https://www.discogs.com/artist/1372391-The-Mercurymen — discogs is generally unreliable as a source see WP:DISCOGS so does not help show notability
https://www.youtube.com/@the-mercurymen/videos — having a Youtube channel is not notable, having one with 7 subscribers indicated not very notable
https://dbpedia.org/page/The_Mercurymen_(Canadian_band) — N wikis are not valid sources

So you have nothing showing the required notability, just existence. Please review Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for taking the time to look at the links. I understand your response.

So maybe you can explain something to me.

How is this page: The Mercurymen qualifiable?

This page is for a British band of the same name, and it contains only three citation links, all of them self referencing. How are these valid citations, when the above are not?

To be clear, I am not being obstreperous, it's a legitimate question. I looked at this page a few days ago thinking it would provide examples of a well sourced page for an independent musical artist.

One of the links is from social media, another from their own web page. This is literally the defintion of a self referencing citation.

Regarding notabilty: I hear your points. But assigning notability is subjective, and i'm guessing subjective opinions are frowned upon somewhere in the editing guidelines.

If the page for the Canadian band is self referencing and only displays existence, not notabilty, how is the page for the UK band different?

Are you telling me one page holds more "notability" value than the other, based on your own subjective judgement?

Again, i am not trying to punch above my weight here. I am merely looking for clarification. After being given reasons for deletion and referencing a similar page for guidance, i am seeing the exact same issues you are telling me disqualify the page being deleted. Can you explain the rational and apparent lack of consistency here?

Thanks again for your time, have a good day

Respectfully

Neil Carburetor Dung (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a very legitimate question, but the answer is there is a lot of stuff created before the modern rules that has yes to be improved or deleted. It would have been declined/deleted as well if created today. I have proposed deletion on it to allow anyone a few days to show notability or it will be deleted. In short as stand The Mercurymen is not notable either.

Yes in general notability is subjective, but Wikipeida has a set of guidelines approved by consensus (and continuously evolving). In general it means having 3+ independent reliable sources with significant coverage.

You are not wrong to find that some existing articles appear to exist outside the rules is confusing. It's just that with over 7 billion articles there is a lot of old stuff still to clean up, and we are all just volunteers like you.

Lastly, I always like to note that just because a subject does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines does not mean the subject is not worthy and/or notable in other ways. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there -

Sorry for taking so long to reply but i decided to take a pause before responding. I want to say thank you for listening to my questions and points, and to say once again that i don't dispute the necessity of stringent rules regarding content available through Wikipedia. Honestly the internet would probably be a much healthier place if this was true across the board (lol), but that again raises the questions of subjectivity and arbitration.

And sometimes it is ok to just exist.

Thanks again Carburetor Dung (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)