Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon Cause (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Cause

Paragon Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article about a band which was deleted a year ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon Cause, but has not shown or reliably sourced any stronger claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Working with a prominent record producer is not an automatic notability freebie for bands in and of itself, and neither is composing music for a podcast -- and the "charting" claims here are all tied to WP:BADCHARTS rather than notability-conferring charts: notability because charting requires IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard, not individual radio station charts or "FMQB Submodern". And of the ten footnotes, five are blogs that are not support for notability, and three more are the bad charts -- and of the two that are actually real media outlets, one just gives them a 33-word blurb in a "songs you need to hear" listicle on CBC Hamilton (which is a local news bureau in a single city, and not the same thing as the national news division of the CBC for the purposes of claiming "nationalized" coverage) and the other is a short album review in a local-interest magazine in their hometown, which means that they don't represent enough substance or range or volume of media coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1 in lieu of having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria. There's also a direct WP:COI here, as the article was recreated by a WP:SPA whose username closely corresponds to the name of one of the band members. Nothing here is a stronger notability claim than the band had the first time, the quality of the sourcing has not improved, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which bands are entitled to place themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the references point to a veneer of notability. Nothing substantial musically has been achieved per requirements of WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.