Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traedonya


 * 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   no consensus. Although there are more keep !votes than delete ones, remember that AFD is not a vote. I am closing this as no consensus as, after 3 weeks, there have been only 2 policy-based delete !votes... not enough for a solid consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Traedonya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 10.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (chinwag)  @ 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (banter)  @ 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  czar  &middot;   &middot;  05:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep - I have done my research and honestly, I do not know why this article is being considered for deletion? It's obvious that the page is being worked on constantly to reach proper page standings. The musician is an established performer. Some of you guys just like performing deletions because it's fun for you and may assume some type of power. I say allow the page to continue to be developed. Wouldn't that be fair? Plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are listed for this article to remain. I support keeping this page.


 * Delete - having done my own search I could find virtually nothing. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, sure, but nothing by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Happy to consider anything anyone can find, but I can't support keeping this at the moment. Stalwart 111  08:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have done my research and honestly, I do not know why this article is being considered for deletion? It's obvious that the page is being worked on constantly to reach proper page standings. The musician is an established performer. Some of you guys just like performing deletions because it's fun for you and may assume some type of power. I say allow the page to continue to be developed. Wouldn't that be fair? Plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are listed for this article to remain. I support keeping this page. Ugene' Cromwell 111  7:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Ugene' Cromwell (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are the creator of the page and you have a conflict of interest therefore your vote does not count. Koala15 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Why wouldn't my comment count if I'm making a "valid" point? The artist has plenty of press on line as well as in print, do your research. Ugene' Cromwell 111  (talk 8:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No need for the dueling "comment" notes - just indent properly.
 * Ugene, the conflict of interest is one thing but the ad hom attack on anyone who has supported deletion as fun and a power-trip is not the right way to go about it. There's nothing "valid" about that point. If you truly want to make a "valid point" then demonstrate you have met your burden of proof and have provided significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That hasn't been included in the article so far and saying such coverage exists doesn't make it so. There are broken links, obviously un-reliable sources, things sourced to her myspace page and things filed in "press release" categories. My advice? Avoid all of those along with the passing mentions in articles about someone else. The New York Magazine article is in the right direction but still doesn't really provide significant coverage of the subject. Go back and provide some proper sources, lose the personal attacks and you'll have a much better chance of saving your article. Stalwart 111  03:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm not sure why you decided to borrow my 111s (though I have absolutely no problem with that) but the link you used doesn't work. Stalwart 111  03:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart111, I'm quite new at building and editing articles, I'm learning as I go. In ref to personal attacks, that was not intentional or directed to anyone specific. It's just something that I've noticed about different articles since paying attention to different type of articles. So my statement was just my opinion, not personal and not directed to anyone specific. I indeed do need help as I go and would like your guidance, until I get the hang of the wiki community, the proper way to do things and what not to do. This is my first time building an article. As far as your "111", I thought that I needed that for my comment to be listed, my apologies. I do look forward to you helping with this page, I see that you have many credentials on wiki. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugene' Cromwell (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're new, you're not connected to the subject and you have a genuine interest in contributing here, you should probably start by creating articles about obviously notable subjects and then move on to creating some about subjects of marginal or questionable notability. There are plenty of things in the world that are obviously notable but don't have articles here. Start on those, gain experience, build your skills and then go back to articles where you're going to have to fight to prove notability. If you have a basic understanding of the principles of notability and verifiability here, you'll have a much easier time of it. For this article, you still need to demonstrate that the subject meets our General Notability Guidelines. Stalwart 111  22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. New York Magazine, Carribeean E Magazine etc. Article simply needs improvement. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? The CEM piece you cite is a press release, is categorised that way and has been discussed above. It has been acknowledged that the New York Magazine article is a start but there is literally nothing else available, certainly not "substantial coverage". Stalwart 111  03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Literally nothing else? From the Seattle Post Intelligencer "On the stage, get ready for the talent of TraeDonya, the "Bride of Funk." Calling her work "hip opera," the diva "sings with raw passion, love and sometimes anger." TraeDonya also offers workshops for young women in which she discusses the highs and lows of the music industry." see here. There are also several book sources including in an encyclopedia. She is noted, for example, here, here, here and elsewhere. This coverage seems pretty substantial. This doesn't seem insignificant. She seems to have garnered coverage in reliable sources. She's not the most famous artist, but she's been noted for her solo work, her band, and for her work with other more notable talents. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And in fact I see numerous sources are listed in the "Further Reading" section. I don't see how this recording artist could be considered nonnotable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! The Amalgamation Mag content is certainly worth using. The line from the Seattle PI is the only line in that article about her. A passing mention in an article about other things really isn't significant coverage, though it is better than some of the stuff cited now. Likewise, the passing mentions in books or magazines (where title, authorship and reliability are uncertain) don't add much. I'm 50/50 on the Urban Network source. It was added by a site administrator though authorship is unclear. It's not the worst source, but probably not the best. If you have a look at the Further Reading list, most of the material there would fall into the category of WP:USERG, which was the issue from the start. In total, I'd say we're looking at 2 decent sources, 1 possibly okay source and a passing mention. It won't take much more than that and you've certainly found more than me. Got anything else? Stalwart 111  07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.