User talk:Qqquestioner

Speedy deletion of The Mydas Ascension
A tag has been placed on The Mydas Ascension requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ros0709 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. I happened to see the aforementioned article while out on recent changes patrol and figured I'd give a bit more of an explanation. First, our capacity to maintain and monitor our articles is merely ridiculous, not ludicrous. Given the number of articles we get about bands without a single album out yet, their upkeep would go into the latter category and they thus wouldn't be of much use to anyone. The part of our thicket-o'-rules (sigh) that deals with music puts the requirements higher than that. Second, basing an article on a group entirely on the statements of that group would (for just one thing) lead to Wikipedia having glowing endorsements of every product that's now found in spam e-mails. An article has to have a basis that readers can take at its word, otherwise that article's more trouble than it's worth - and it's worth a great deal. Deletion sucks, but this is what WP has to do if its model is to work. Hope that helps, Kiz o r  18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. So much for that idea. Thank you very much for the explanation! I'll tell them once they make it in the papers I'll write their article.

Qqquestioner (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. Good luck with that the next time around. --Kiz o r  19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)