Here's my contribution to User talk:KrakatoaKatie's talk page who I think ruled for deletion of the article on Misery the band:

It appears to me that you decided to terminate this article as the judge, but I'm no expert on WP, so disregard the following if I'm wrong. What was accomplished by this deletion? Looking at the big picture, was WP improved by what you did? What problem was solved?

Where is this Giggy that nominated this article? They seem to be missing and their page blanked. As far as I know this person never answered my question of what motivated them to nominate it for deletion? The consensus you mentioned has a good chance of being nonsense. Giggy's vote doesn't count, so you have 2 deletes, 2 maybes, and 2 keeps. And what do these 2 deleters care about the article anyway? Some people don't feel a need to delete other people's work that is valuable and serves a useful purpose.

There are rules of notability that were referenced in the discussion of this. But those rules did not serve WP well is this case. WP has given up this traffic, to prove what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misery_%28band%29


Giggy who nominated the article for deletion, did the all too often seen on Wikipedia, I'm out of here, I am blanking my stuff, you can't talk to me, move. How's that as an example of credibility? What a celebration of their work? So well planned, they have a noob like me taking shots at them. Good luck Giggy. Don't let them get you. 

Update: It turns out Giggy has not quit Wikipedia and was only going through a name change. I retract what I said about them above. They still haven't answered the question of why they nominated the article for deletion?