You can argue the deletion of pages on wiki which is nice. These are the rules the guy was using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC
This is my response to him: Ok... This is why I think it shouldn't of been deleted according to your rules. Lets go through it rule by rule why it shouldnt of been deleted...
Rule 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."
They made the cover of BW&K a major magazine for the metal underground scene. Link:
http://www.bravewords.com/features/1000557 If you want more information of the magazine just ask for it and I can provide it for you.
Rule 2: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."
It never mentions in that rule that the artist cant own the label. Plus since the label puts other bands out besides Woods of Ypres, should we delete those too? It has released CDs for 3 other bands, all which are notable in the metal scene. It has existed for more then a few years as well. Clearly this band fits this rule.
Rule 3: # Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Woods if a very prominent band in the local Canadian metal scene. When one of the most prominent members of it died they played at a tribute show for him.
http://www.bravewords.com/news/102767
Rule 4: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
CBC has featured them before on their radio. CBC is a Canadian radio station
http://radio3.cbc.ca/ . I cant find any proof that they were sadly... but they were.
Rule 5: Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
Started the Summer Black Metal style of Black Metal.
Rule 6: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
See the BW&K link I provided. It has also been covered in other publications that are notable to the underground metal scene if you so desire I can go find em for you.
Ok... Thats it for what I can find. 6 rules which say why they should have a wiki page... 6. Wow. So I have a comment for ya. You obviously did some research to find out that the main singer owns the label and saw that as breaking A rule... but honestly, did you not check the other rules? They only have to fulfill one requirement to be able to be on Wiki. I am honestly very disappointed in that. I would expect that when you go about making deletions you want to be certain about something breaking the rules, but if any of the rules I pointed are are true, then most of it can be found by googleing Woods of Ypres and maybe adding in one word like publication or scene. Personally I would also be extra careful if its about something I dont usually write about. I dont know, to me, and I am not making a personal attack, just an observation, that the deletion of the Woods of Ypres page was very careless of you.
Yeah, if anyone can think of any other way that Woods fulfills ANY of the rules above feel free to post em here.
ROD; Reason given: Group fails WP:MUSIC guidelines, and all their releases were made via the vocalist's own label. TW)
Wow! Great job man!!! 
