User talk:Dalekay

Inquisitor Betrayer
A tag has been placed on Inquisitor Betrayer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article 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 (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template  to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Urania3 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.   Urania3 18:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message regarding the deletion of your band's page
You are free to tag on those band's respective pages, I only saw yours...and to be clear, I did not delete your band's page, I merely tagged it. Urania3 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bands must meet a standard of notability to be included as a Wikipedia article; there is also a certain style articles should adhere to. Your article was not encyclopedic.
 * Also, please sign your comments with ~ before saving. Urania3 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The links you provided do not all pan out:


 * Redshift was previously screened and passed, with its nomination for deletion removed.


 * Dweller at the Threshold was tagged for speedy deletion, but sufficient argument was made that it was notable. However, it is a newer article and needs to be properly referenced or it risks deletion (see its talk page).


 * Wolfram Spyra's discography is sufficient to be notable. The same is true for Radio Massacre International.

The only one which qualifies is Dweller at the Threshold, and I'm sure it's being closely watched. (As of this writing, the article is only seven days old.)

Please do not confuse the English, "notable" with the Wikipedia, "Notable": the former means "worthy of recognition", while the latter means that it meets Wikipedia's Notability Criteria. It is not meant as an insult to the band's work.

Please do not take any of this personally; I was merely trolling the Recent Changes and your new article caught my eye. Wikipedia litterally gets thousands of new articles each day, and since we're trying to write an encyclopedia together, each one should be screened for appropriateness. You had the opportunity to salvage the article you created...you merely needed to place the tag at the top of the article and make your argument on the talk page, and then improve the article. Instead you chose to blank the article (incidentally, this is considered vandalism).

I urge you to read the notability criteria guideline for music and document notability appropriately in the article. It will save you a great deal of headache, from me or other editors. Urania3 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Blanking pages or removing maintenence tags are considered vandalism. The tag in question, , gives clear instructions on how to dispute its placement on an article, including not removing the tag.


 * I do not feel the notability criteria guideline for music is vague or confusing.  Can you assert and document that Inquisitor Betrayer:
 * Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country?
 * Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country?
 * Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources?
 * 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)?
 * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)?
 * Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable?
 * 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 verifiability.)
 * Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award?
 * Has won or placed in a major music competition?
 * Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show?
 * Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network?
 * Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network?


 * If the answer to any of the above is "yes" and it is documented and verifiable then, there's no problem with creating an article for Inquisitor Betrayer.


 * Berlin School of electronic music is an article concerning a genre of music. It's not an article about a band.  I'm not sure what you're implying here.


 * The tag placed is not "instant delete": it is "speedy delete". Again, the tag has clear instructions on how to contest its placement.  Again, the links you provided have been screened, by other editors, and either have met the criteria for notability or are being watched to ensure they do.  Have you checked any of the respective article's histories?  Some indeed were once tagged for deletion--then either the tag was withdrawn by the nominator or an admin decided that the argument contesting the speedy deletion of the article was valid.  Urania3 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the problem here is that you did not document these assertions in your article. Your article read like advertising copy. That is not a neutral point of view nor is it verifiable information. Wikipedia is not a MySpace clone.Urania3 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is not personal, but a certain onus falls on one to make sure they are conforming to a website's policies and procedures. Especially with Wikipedia: as an encyclopedia, it is supposed to be an authoritative resource, the research already done, the proof already demonstrated.  Personally, I'd really like to see your article included in Wikipedia--but there are many, many, many bands who think that one gig makes them prominent (I'm not saying this is the case for you ;) ).  Friendster, sure.  Wikipedia, no.


 * Again, this was not personal, and I'd like to help you with your article. Wikipedia is a complicated place: my first few edits (in May/June of this year) I was the one on your end--uncertain and unaware of all that is Wiki.  Take your time and read some of Wikipedia's policies (particularly The Five Pillars).  It will definitely help to look at some popular band's pages to see a good format to use.  And please, let's keep communicating.  :) Urania3 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Helpme!
Dale 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, what can I help you with? Don't hesitate to put the helpme tag back once you asked your question! Happy Editing! -- lucasbfr talk 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)