Triggernometry (podcast) – "Delete" closure endorsed, but recreation allowed, subject to a possible reexamination at AfD. Sandstein 05:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe now there is a case for a Wikipedia page for the podcast. Jschanna7 (talk)
@Tone: you were the closing admin on this. Would it be alright with you if I move this to draft so that Jschanna7 can work on it, and I'll replace the redirect? I don't think there needs to be a full discussion here for a nearly three-year-old deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it does not seem to be an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Draft, or Recreation subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous consensus not to keep. Allow recreation, preferably via the WP:AFC process. FrankAnchor 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow un-redirection with appropriate sourcing improvement expected, with any editor free to re-AfD it if sourcing remains contested. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and disallow restoration—follow WP:SPLIT. No significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify restoring the redirected page. Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. It is simply too obvious that this should not be a separate page per WP:PAGEDECIDE and no single new source can change that; this was the general mood in the AfD. The content already overlaps with content in the target article. Instead, more content can be merged from history and/or new content about the podcast can be added to the target article, and a split can be proposed if and when that ever seems appropriate (if the passages about the podcast become so long as to be out of proportion to the rest of the article about the podcast creator). I don't favor moving to draft because the process around drafts can't do anything here. —Alalch E. 09:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be co-hosted, I'm not clear how having the information at one of the co-host's page is obviously the best outcome if the podcast is notable. And a single source can be enough to move something over the notability bar. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other host doesn't have an article and is a less prominent individual. The page is already redirected to Kisin and is de facto merged in the sense that content overlaps. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we're not supposed to have article X with sections/passages A, B and C and article Y that is essentially the same as B (same in level of detail), since that is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; this is WP:DEL-REASON#5. This is reflected sufficiently in the AfD, and not just my original reasoning/relitigation. —Alalch E. 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. No one has argued the source isn't significant nor that WP:N isn't now met. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paragon Cause – "Delete" closure endorsed. Because the appellant has a conflict of interest about the topic, they should not be the one to attempt to restore the article, see WP:COI. Sandstein 05:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I wanted to bring up restoring this page. After reviewing this and notability, I am perplexed why this page has been deleted and continue to be deleted. The notes from Reviewers seem to only highlight the negatives in terms of ref and not the positive. I reviewed original authors notes and agree. I still wonder if this is an example of the lack of female representation in wikipedia and why editors only focus on negatives and not the positives.
As for notability, here are points in response to wikipedia's own guidelines
1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
The band has appeared in a number of non-trival articles including National Magazine exclaim! Magazine [1], CBC Music[2]Rogers TV[3] and Salt Water News among many others, [4]
2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
The band released 4 albums and these albums were all produced by The RaveonettesSune Rose Wagner and songs include performances by liam howe of the Sneaker PimpsanEric Avery of Jane's Addiction, all internationally known artists.
3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award
The artists have won two ECMA
4.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
The artits are on rotation for Stingray Music, CBC Music, Corus Radio have appeared in top 50 National Charts in both the USA and Canada to name a few
Previous notes from editors also reference misleading information as well as information that can bias future reviewers such as saying a 'band member' wrote the prior article and thus warn of caution. This creates considerable bias for any other editor reviewing.
Its very easy to review many other artists articles who are male fronted bands that have far less notability and are on wikipedia.
Examples include Slowcoaster[[1]] are two examples.
Endorse the two deletion discussions, if this is an appeal of the deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the appellant is looking for a bias, I think that the bias is against conflict of interest editing rather than against female musicians. (The appellant is a member of the band). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The appellant is advised to request advice at the Teahouse before submitting a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - both of the deletion discussions were clear consensus to delete. There is already a draft at Draft:Paragon Cause, please consider contributing to that especially if you can address the notability concerns. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last deletion was over 3 years ago, the correct course of action would be to read WP:COI and then continue with the draft. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
<Wish to i) understand when and why page was deleted so as to improve it, so this is a request to undelete it to save to draftspace or userspace. Unable to notify admin who deleted it as identity unknown. Johncdraper (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The article deleted was a copyright violation, these cannot be restored. There is no bar to the lister, or anyone else, writing about this organization in their own words. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
