120 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 108

[Aquillion]

You seem to be willign to ref. Wiki. I have to ask, how to I complain about the deletion of an artical that I felt was apropreate?

There are several ways. If you feel the deletion itself was performed inappropriately, there's Deletion Review; you shouldn't use that if you merely disagree with the deletion, though, since its rules are fairly stacked against restoring articles except in the most extreme cases.

The best way is really just to figure out why the article was deleted, and create a new version that fixes the problem. The easiest way to do that is by citing a long list of reliable sources for the new article -- notice how Erfworld's article was once deleted, but the new version has an entire page of sources from all over the place. That protects it from being deleted again.

Good sources can answer almost every reason people have for deleting articles. They show, basically, that there is something to write about here (without having editors just research the topic themselves or invent it or write stuff that nobody can verify.) Arguing with people on Wikipedia over an article is unlikely to help very much (and may just turn people against you), but articles with lots and lots of reliable high-profile sources are almost never deleted, so adding those (or creating a new version with them) is almost always more effective.

Do not simply repost what was there before, though. The addition of sources (or otherwise fixing the problems people raised in the AFD) is also vital to escape deletion as a straight recreation of previously-deleted material. Also, note in the talk page of the new article that it was deleted, and indicate what you changed and why you think this addresses the AFD -- this is important, since it lets admins know that you're not just mindlessly recreating it, ensures they know that the new version is substantially different from the old one, and so forth.

(Also, how was the article you want to restore deleted? It matters. If it was merely PROD-ed, say, you can just recreate it whenever you want; if it was speedied you can recreate it whenever you want, too, but you have to make sure it doesn't meet the criteria it was speedied under; if it was AFDed you can recreate it if you substantially rewrite it to address the problems for which it was AFDed; and if it was, say, deleted by executive action because the Wikimedia Foundation ordered it to be deleted, there is nothing you can do it all -- although that only generally happens in extreme cases, where an article's existence potentially threatens Wikipedia itself or exposes the site to immediate, impending legal action, and the existing mechanisms failed to deal with it.)

EDIT: Assuming you are User:Zolem on Wikipedia, it looks like your article was speedy-deleted over notability concerns. Addressing the speedy criteria is very easy; notice where it says "Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time." All you have to do to avoid deletion under that rule is assert notability (not prove it, just say it.) However, to avoid an eventual AFD, it would be best if you could show it, too; provide links to the band's website and other places to cite things about them, to reviews to illustrate their reception, to places where sales figures are reported to indicate how much they sell and so forth. Look at other articles on similar bands, see what they say, then dig up the same data for the band you want to write an article on, and source it. This will protect against deletion over the longer term.

See also the notability guidelines for music. Those are not hard-and-fast rules, but they represent the general things people seem to look for in music articles on AFD. The more things from that you can satisfy in the article, the better. For example, showing multiple independent critics reviewing it would be a very good thing.