Here's the answer to my prior entry on KrakatoaKatia's talk page:
"Hello - thanks for the message. Since you're unhappy with the AFD result, you should open a discussion at RV deletion review. In short, the three chief reasons I closed the discussion as 'delete' because 1) there were five editors who supported deletion, and their arguments were stronger than the two who supported continued inclusion; 2) the article had no sources; and 3) the band was not notable per WP:BAND. The discovery that the subject of the article was changed in April 2007 from a New York band called Misery to a Minneapolis band called Misery didn't help much either.
If you do decide to go to DRV, I'll be happy to lay out the full reasoning behind my position and an answer to each of your questions. Thanks again. - KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)"
Here I am being taught about the Wikipedia phrase, rough consensus. In this case it seems to mean, I count what I want, because it isn't a consensus, only something like a consensus. The issue of a lack of sources perhaps does calls for a deletion, but that's just the critics having their way. The creator(s) of this article, which was probably accurate, has had their work undone. There are the creators and the destroyers in this world, and with this article, the destroyers had their way. I think Wikipedia is evolving to less use of sources. Much of it is unsourced already, and it works. The source standard, is in my opinion often just a tool of the destroyers. To source, is to go against the often repeated meaning of "Wiki", which is quick. The issue of not meeting WP standards for bands, is to me about the counter productive use of the standards. These and all standards, should support the goal of Wikipedia. That being traffic, as opposed to irrelevancy.
Below I am replying on KrakatoaKatie's talk page to her above:
I've got both you and Giggy not answering my questions, and me learning that you don't care to. You remarked on my user page that the count was 5 for deletion and 2 against. If Giggy (who didn't leave, and only had a name change) had a point with their nomination, and was objective, you'd think they'd not vote. So if you were counting them in your 5, that makes it 4. You counted the 2 maybes as in favor of deletion. If one was cautious, they wouldn't count a maybe as a for. It seems you're speaking for the 2 maybes to make your case, and that's not objective. Since we can't speak for Giggy, and we can only surmise that they wouldn't vote as a way to prove their objectivity, (in fact, they did not formally vote) that vote is not counted either. It's 2 to 2, the motion fails. Yes, I realize there may have been one other vote, but that one wasn't formalized and didn't say "Delete", but rather said "comment", and again, we are not speaking for them. And since you did not not formally vote, perhaps concerned about your objectivity, I can't see where you get the 5 in favor, which is really 4, which is really 2. When Wales said be bold, I don't think he meant this.
Now there's the, "this article used to be about the New York not the Minneapolis band called Misery issue." Why does it matter? The article improved once this was discovered, didn't it? Since I can't find the WP article any more, I can't really see a point here. Is it that, the band from Minneapolis that I can find on the internet was the subject your article, and that the band from New York that I can't find, was for awhile, but that got fixed? Nanabozho 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want help out here, do what you can and keep me informed. If you can retrieve the article using your special skills, I'd like a copy of it in case I decide to attempt to put it back up. If you haven't read my other comments on this, one of the band members is my distant cousin, who I've never met, and on whose behalf I am not acting.
