Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene (2nd nomination)

Halocene

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this isn't a G4, the substance of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene do not appear to have been addressed by this new draft and merger. Since the decision is two years old, a new consensus may be helpful. Bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United States of America, and Arizona. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this earlier but was going to let the dust settle a day prior to bringing to AfD. Page created despite draft being declined multiple times. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy (effectively endorsing the closure of the first AfD). Now that I've the energy to sit and do WP:BEFORE search, I've found mostly press releases or routine announcements, some of which are cited in the article itself. Many of the in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources are about the plagiarism accusations. I had done the merge because a patroller (?) found Halocene (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and requested a pageswap with the base page name. I thought it better to keep the extensive page history at plain old Halocene, especially since (band) only has my merge, the patroller's addition of a short description and hatnote, and the recreator's writing. (For transparency, nominator notified me about this AfD on my user talk.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with aggregating the history together in the event Halocene becomes notable and have no issue with any of your actions here @Rotideypoc41352. I also notified the creator of the new article so that you were both aware since the script "saw" the creator as the the one who created the article deleted in 2023. I'm guessing the history was somewhere as this is a remarkable first edit even assuming Rledder had been active as an IP before registering for easy creation. Star Mississippi 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just didn't want the potential contradiction between my initial actions (removing the redirect) and my comment here [to restore it] to confuse the closer or anyone else looking into this AfD, so I thought I would clarify that the merge was more about attribution and page history than about notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history in tact to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I created this in good-faith but for some reason a promotional version was restored - I've removed unsourced and promotional content. Halocene has received coverage beyond The Masked Singer controversy, coverage dates back to 2011 when Phoenix New Times covered it ([1]). Two state-level publications have covered it including Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic and meets WP:SIGCOV thresold. Phoenix New Times covered it in-depth in 2011, 2017, and 2020. Rock Sound covered it in 2023. None of these sources were provided by editors in the previous draft or deletion discussion. There are more references in music magazines as well and should be kept. Rledder (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning up the article and for leaving a detailed comment here. I see what I consider to be an acceptable variability in judgment on which sources show the band meets GNG (or WP:NBAND). The first two [external] links are to the same source (explaining for closer's convenience)—and it is an interview, which is not independent of the subject and doesn't help determine if they meet GNG. I have no firm opinion on the 2017 PNT article; the 2020 one does meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I read the 2023 Rock Sound piece as a routine announcement (of a new release) and thus not significant coverage of the band (and maybe not even for the single itself, tangentially). Returning to the topic at hand, I do not know if we have had consensus that two sources shows that this subject meets GNG. As nominator said, this discussion will hopefully clarify that and the evaluation for notability purposes of the sources we can find. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying for closer that WP:SIRS in my reply above simply refers to the bullet points under WP:GNG: secondary sources independent of the subject, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band passes WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. As it currently stands, with two articles that meet WP:SIRS criteria, it passes that test. While I see merit in the redirect option, a read into the band's article and the sources linked suggests that while the controversy surrounding The Masked Singer did play a major factor, their notability is not solely derived from that incident.

(also a minor declaration that I was the one who happened to patrol the article as Rotideypoc mentioned) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources which you feel show it passes GNG/NBAND? Also, how does SIRS apply as that is a company guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIRS does apply to the source materials, which shows a likely level of notability associated with the subject. In this case, having at least one quoted article in 2019 coming from The Arizona Republic - the most widely circulated newspaper in Arizona - infers a presumable notability that goes statewide.

In addition to The Masked Singer controversy article(s), one of which was the aforementioned quoted article, the 2020 Phoenix New Times article @Rledder mentioned earlier in the discussion states that the band has taken what was back in 2020 considered a lesser-adopted approach to Twitch as a platform, and are recognized by the streaming platform for it. That in itself merits independent notability from The Masked Singer, and a degree of notability that is non-trivial. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but SIRS has NO application for this page. It is a subject specific notability guideline dealing with companies, not musicians and/or bands. You have also failed to cite the requested sources that show notability under GNG or NBAND. Do you have those available for the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede on the SIRS part as this may have been my misunderstanding on how it's applied in sources. As to the requested sources: The Arizona Republic article (reference 9), as well as the PNT article in question (reference 4). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for conceding. The AP article is paywalled but I am assuming it was prior to 2023? I should have specified that I am looking for sources showing notability since the last deletion discussion where it was found they were not notable. We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here and, in some parts of the discussion, not even agreement on acceptable standards for sources. I think a bit more discussion will help and maybe a bit more editor participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]