Here's the latest and probably last exchange with Giggy (Dihydrogen Monoxide). I can see this approach isn't going to work. I'd like to mention that the often claimed transparency of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily apply to  specific editors. The question, why did you nominate this article for deletion, isn't being answered here. Transparency is not always an attribute of its editors. And this isn't a pick on Giggy post. They are probably average and typical, and receive all kinds of stuff on their talk pages. There are probably valid reasons that Giggy responds as they do.
 
I write on Giggy's talk page:
I noticed you recently added the WikiProject Alternative Music userbox to your page. I had a look at the goals of that WikiProject. "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." So how does that relate to your nomination of this article for deletion? And thank you for not answering my last question which was, what motivated you to nominate the article? September 12th

Giggy writes on my talk page:
The goals should read "To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, by creating and improving articles related to the subject." Misery isn't notable. Would you like me to again explain why this is so? Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I write on Giggy's talk page:
Well it doesn't read, To improve Wikipedia's coverage of NOTABLE alternative music, so I hope you change it or find another way to reconcile your apparently conflicting positions of more coverage of alternative music while deleting their articles. You won Giggy. The world is now safe from having to read the Misery (band) on Wikipedia and can focus their research on professional wrestlers and Wikipedia approved NOTABLE alternative music. Thank you and good luck.  20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC) [End of comment on Giggy's page.]

NOTABLE alternative music is somewhat of an oxymoron. To say that Misery (band) is not notable is somewhat what of a "Well duh" argument. The Red Hot Chili Peppers, found on the Alternative WikiProject aren't really alternative. I know who they are, and I remember seeing a video they made. And Nirvana? For goodness sake. These are notable bands with tons of money. So it seems we are against alternative bands while claiming to be in favor of them. Oh, the humanity of it all!