User talk:Randykitty

Before posting here, please READ THIS FIRST

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

START A NEW TALK TOPIC.

Request

Hi Randy,

I wrote an article a while back that was deleted. A few things have changed and I am curious if people would re-consider. I know one of the big issues was related to notability. I think that has changed. As of now, the group is being featured both online and on national radio with Corus Radio (See Links below).

In addition to this, they were featured on national CBC radio as well as an article on National CBC website (see Below).

I think together, this certainly increases the notability to the point where it meets wikipedia standards. Obviously, I can add these links to the page if restored. I am not sure how this works, but I thought writting you was the best first step.

Links/Refs

Paragon Cause on Global News Canada and Corus Radio - https://globalnews.ca/news/5080513/nighttime-podcast-recap-firearms-arsenal-valentines-day-massacre-plot/ Paragon Cause on Global News Canada and Corus Radio - https://globalnews.ca/news/5055265/nighttime-podcast-recap-sasquatch-pictou-county-ns/

Paragon Cause on CBC - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/new-ontario-songs-1.5010329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbonapar (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• What was the article? --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

band- Paragon Cause

I am not sure how to find a deleted article? Jbonapar (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• I found it via your talk page. You give three links above. The first two just list Paragon Cause. The third is a very brief mention. None of this contributes to notability (please see Wp:NBAND and WP:GNG). I see no reason to change the outcome of the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy, they list the Band in the first two links, but this is a link indicating the band is doing the soundtrack work for this show, which is played internationally on over 39 radiostations now. Corus radio is one of North America's largest radio groups. I think this is some missunderstanding here. A group that is contrubuting soundtrack work to a show that is internationally known, let alone nationally (ie, top 10 itunes podcasts, plus international play) seems reasonably notable. Jbonapar (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's just a listing, without any real coverage. What you need are independent sources that discuss the band in-depth. If you disagree with my evaluation, you're welcome to take this to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I'll see what else can be done. I understand your point, but I know there are more details. I'll just post a few below, but at the same time, i'll look to other avenues. We can agree to disagree ;)

- The band was recently featured on both National CBC Radio (Show: In the key of C, plus national play) - The band was featured on CBC online as one of the top new songs of the week from a city outside the bands home city - The band is responsible for soundtrack and theme music for the show The Nighttime Podcast which is syndicated internationally on corus radio. - this POdcast and radio show, featuring the music of Paragon Cause has over 5 Million Downloads on itunes! - this POdcast, featuring the bands soundtrack work has reached as high as #27 on North American (including the USA) itunes charts - The bands music has been featured on CKNW, CHQR, CHED, CFPL, CHML, and 640 Toronto in addition to these stations - I can post 70 or more of links to the episodes but here is a recent one with The band (Paragon Cause) doing soundtrack. The night time podcast and radio show have featured 8 of the bands songs on their show in addition to the theme music. - The band has just recorded an album with Academy Award Nominee and international music star Sune Rose Wagner of the Raveonettes you can see the mention on his instagram page also another link where he is mixing our album

Jbonapar (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Crapwatch

I know we have disagreements from time to time (always colloquial however), but I'd appreciate some support here if you think the Crapwatch is a good initiative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good job! I've made a few comments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about relist after no comments

Hi! This AfD was relisted after receiving no comments despite being on two delsorts. My understanding is that WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELIST both state that AfD's with no comments are treated as expired PRODs, right? Just asking for clarification :) Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's correct, but generally I don't close as "soft delete" without at least one relist to give the community the chance to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Got it, thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Proposed Portland Ballpark

User:SportsFan007 has asked for a deletion review of Proposed Portland Ballpark. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know, Cryptic. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you delete the category

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K&C Video? I think CfD would be just a speedy delete going through the motions wasting everyone's time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• ALthough I kind of agree with what you say about wasting time, I don't really see a good rationale for deleting out of hand. It would be different if the category creator would support this request. --Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

you are deleting my contributions

Please specify why you are deleting the journal of natural resources from the list of environmental journals. I would apreciate if you could explain to me, what must be done to ad the JNRD to this list. (Sciencefortheworld (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC))

• As explained in the edit summaries, have a look at WP:WTAF. Once an article exists, it can be linked from the list. However, before creating an article, have a look whether the journal actually meets either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New Wikipedia page for Alphaville Journal- speedy deletion notice

Hi, sorry new to Wikipedia. On revision, the first publication on the page 'Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media' clearly did not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. Information from this page that read like a promotion for the journal has been removed. I believe the journal is notable as it includes a large number of articles from academic experts from all around the world. It is also the first journal of its kind in Ireland. Breillyucc (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, besides being promotional, the article also suffers from a lack of notability. That academic experts published in the journal is irrelevant, as is being the first of its kind in Ireland. What is needed are in-depth independent sources discussing the journal (that would make it meet WP:GNG) or indexing in major selective databases. None of this is currently the case. If it is not deleted as spam, I will open a community discussion to delete the article. Sorry about that, but I hope that you understand that a serious encyclopedia has to have clear inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Manuscript Press merged with Rick Norwood

You merged Manuscript Press with Rick Norwood. The article about me, Rick Norwood, was also proposed for deletion at the same time as the article Manuscript Press. Now, the proposal for the deletion of the article Rick Norwood has been relisted. The outcome, if the relisted proposal for deletion is successful, would be the deletion of both the article about me and the Manuscript Press article. I have two questions. First, if an article is proposed for deletion, and not deleted, can the proposal for deletion be relisted indefinitely? Second, is there any way to see the final decision and reasoning after an article is deleted? (As far as I can tell, a deleted article and its proposed for deletion page just vanish.) Thank you in advance for your replies. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I realized when I closed the AfD that the outcome might be that both articles would in the end be deleted. The AfD page is not deleted at all, but remains available (only in very rare cases -like contentious discussions about living persons- are they courtesy blanked, but even in those cases the contents remain visible in the history). Usually, a link to the AfD is given in the deletion log (see Sofia Chaudry for example). Relistings are routine if a discussion is still ongoing and there is no clear consensus. Second relistings also happen quite frequently, keeping a discussion open for 3 weeks. In rare cases there are even third relistings. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That was exactly the information I needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

accused of "peddling clear falsehoods"

I am no longer going to think the editor who accuses me of peddling falsehoods is worth any more time on my part. The "Hijacked Journal" misuse is his personal property, it appears, and I am outta there. Thank you for your comments, but I find reasoning with brick walls hurts me, and does little damage to the bricks. Collect (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The "Hijacked Journal" misuse is his personal property, it appears. Again, it is not. Those are words from some other editor back from 2014, and the use of "hijacked journal" to designed the victims of hijacking is found in sources. I fully recognize that other sources use the term to apply to the perpetrators, possibly even a majority of these sources, but that's why the move request was made in the first place: to have an unambiguous title to refer to the concept of journal hijacking, so we can use a yet-to-be-determined, but nonetheless clear and unambiguous terms to refer to a) the fraud journals usurping the identities of real journal, and b) the real journals. However, one thing the proposal is most clearly not about is "to place the dysphemism aiming at the real journals". You are assuming an extreme amount of bad faith here, and an extreme amount of battleground mentality, with an extreme level of word twisting. And that, frankly, is getting rather annoying. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)