Perhaps part of the insight I gained from the Misery (band) discussion is how easily people lose focus around here. Yes I have a website with the domain name IHateWikipedia.com. (Which by the way is for sale. Bidding starts at $50,000.) But is that fact supposed to determine the fate of Misery band article? No, most would agree it shouldn't. One voter on the Afd page for the Australian band even redacted their entry after looking at my sites. 

Here's a link to support the Minneapolis bands inclusion in Wikipedia: 

http://www.punknews.org/review/4657

Here's a link that was used by the one who apparently swayed the debate to include the Australian bands inclusion in Wikipedia:

http://www.ausmetal.net.au/band.m?action=view&id=14

Do we see a difference? Can we find a hair to split in such a way as to allow one band in and the other out?

This is Wikipedia. This is it, unless some people change it. Wikipedia belongs to those that show up.

Also we have this from Wikipedia:

"Misery formed and provided a nucleus for what was has become an internationally envied crust punk scene in Minneapolis. Taking their influence from UK bands like Discharge and Amebix, Misery blended dark and heavy hardcore with an anti-authority political stand that was very influential on the future development of the genre."

For the deletionists to be consistent in my book, now they have to go and look at purging the above. Is it sourced? Did Misery really do this, or did some insider puff up the band?  I admit the above doesn't have the weight of a complete article, but the question of the dividing line of article/no article, can be looked at. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information that people use in my opinion, but I think that those in charge of it should have the attribute of being consistent in what they do.