User talk:Agentdanger

Notability of Luckiest Losers
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Luckiest Losers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Luckiest Losers seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Luckiest Losers, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckiest Losers
Hey man, welcome to Wikipedia. Luckiest Losers was just deleted by somebody and I'm guessing it's the 2nd time you created it? Have a look at the notability guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY. It isn't whether or not what you say is true that matters, it's that it is notable enough to get included in the encyclopedia (and verifiable, but that's beside the point here). If you can show that it's notable, by all means recreate it, and contest the deletion. By the way, don't create an article with a premade tag, it's bad form. Good luck with your articles. Zelse81 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also specific guidelines for bands at WP:BAND. Unfortunately, Luckiest Losers didn't meet any of those guidelines. Furthermore, articles should provide reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Again, this article lacked any. That's why it was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)