Here I am reposting what Hesperian recently wrote on my talk page:

"Are you aware of our WPOINT policy? You most probably are; it is well-known because too many Wikipedians make a sport of accusing other Wikipedians of violating it. I prefer not to bandy it about myself, but your nomination of Misery (Australian band) is a textbook case. Just because you're pissed off that your pet article was deleted, you're going to piss away the valuable time of other contributors. To prove what? Will it bring your article back? Will it improve the encyclopaedia? Will gnawing this bone help you sleep at night? Hesperian 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"

Here is my reply on their talk page:

Have you looked at the article for the Australian band recently? You didn't add sources, Ziggy didn't add sources, I didn't add them, no one did. But we are protecting the article why again? So easy to destroy, and so hard to create.

If you want a reason for the AfD, how about to promote a better understanding between contributors - creators of information, and deletionist like Ziggy? But did that happen? Deleting the one article helps the encyclopedia as much as deleting the other.

See this link: http://www.punknews.org/review/4657 See your quote: "Verifiable by recourse to an independent third party source, which is considered reliable and reputable within the Australian heavy metal music subculture... That's all the notability guideline requires."

Are we going to be leaving a message for Ziggy too? Nanabozho 07:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have Hesperian and I not writing an encyclopedia, but doing the above instead. So it's not that we have to be a writer to write Wikipedia, we have to be a debater. Fine. We are learning about our new world.

And an afterthought, I am sleeping fine with or without the Misery article, and it's really not my pet article. I didn't write it, I only tried to protect it. As I have disclosed, my distant cousin is in the band.