User talk:SkazaRemi

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pradigy has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/pradigy).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

You said:

"This article was deleted by you with the reason being "not yet notable". The band mentioned in this article is very well know in the region for what they do. Credits include Television, interviews, radio & etc" for the side project, and

"This article was deleted by you with the reason being "notability not asserted". The artist this article is about is very well know in the region for what they do as well as having major distribution across the nation. Credits include Television, interviews, & radio" for the musician himself.

The deletions go under the same rationale, really - either "not yet notable" or "notability not asserted". If the musician has major distribution... well, how am I supposed to know? The article didn't say anything about any of that. Nothing about TV, nothing about interviews, nothing about anybody's opinions of the musician or the side project. Even the record label is obviously a vanity label.

Well, okay - there's one positive review. On a blog. Whose blog? Some guy. Any reason to care about who this guy is or what his opinions are? I dunno: you didn't say.

So here's what I'm offering. If you want the articles back, then you, SkazaRemi, must prove to me that they're worth it. Go to this page here and fill it full of reasons and evidence. Remember, stuff that Prad made themselves doesn't count for showing notability; prove to me that they've had an impact, that they're more than just a Myspace page and a vanity label (and don't be disingenuously literal on this; you know damn well what I mean). Prove to me that the criteria in WP:MUSIC have been met.

If you can do that, then I'll happily restore the articles. DS (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly is about to sleep, so I am going to take over for him. The thing WP:MUSIC looks for is that a band will have a record released on a major label and has some airplay outside of a local area. In all of the blogs I looked and everything I have seen, it is all based in Charlotte, NC. Honestly, at this point right now, an article about the performers cannot be made. But, in a few months or in a few years when the group hits it big, then we can revisit the issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]