Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Cate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Cate

[edit]

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

Baby Cate (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)

non notable musician, no meaningful reliable coverage. a search reveals the usual pr spam from unreliable black hat SEO sites posing as news outlets and the same for those in teh article. Praxidicae (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notable sources found are Hip Hop Weekly, AllMusic, The Deli Magazine, Broadcast Music, Inc.. Although Hip Hop Weekly is the only with an article written, it provides notable coverage. Sweetteaplz (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon another look through the musician's sources, The Hype Magazine is also a notable source used to verify facts on Wikipedia as well. Sweetteaplz (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't even a source, it's jsut a listing. Absolutely useless for notability. And I have doubts to whether Deli Mag is useful for notability since it appears to be a small time blog. Hype is pay for publishing and should be blacklisted, this is PR nonsense, and so is the rest. There is no actual coverage of this person. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. However, Hip Hop Weekly has it's own Wikipedia article, I'm not sure I understand how it can be nonsense unless it's an opinion? Also forgive my ignorance, do sources that have verified social media accounts like Twitter and Facebook not count as reliable? Sweetteaplz (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hip Hop Weekly clearly published puffery from her PR team. Social media is worthless, being verified means nothing and is't coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, aboutinsider, dailymuscroll and muziquemag are all black hat SEO sites, they are pay for publication and in particular aboutinsider is completely fake. Take a peek at their editorial staff, who consist of an NHL player and several models under fake names. Take a peek at all the other fake sites they operate. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact, Walter Görlitz the supposed author of the dailymusicroll piece is also fake, it's a stock photo, see here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and see this https://www.fiv-err.com/muziquemag/publish-your-article-on-google-news-approved-magazine-site (remove the -) for muziquemag, these are all garbage sources which is why I pointed it out in my nom. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the sources used in the actual article for the musician are sufficient? Not including any sources that aren’t there I.e. the sites listed when you search the musician. Besides Hip Hop Weekly and the Hype Magazine, the sources named in the discussion aren’t listed. Sweetteaplz (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I pointed out all the sources Walter Gorlitz mentioned are unacceptable and are now blacklisted aside from HHW, which still isn't significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are acceptable either. Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any listed at RSN so they may be part of a larger group, they are not unacceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be listed at RSN as they're blatantly fake sources. Which is why they are now blacklisted. Are you seriously suggesting after what I've shown you, Walter Görlitz that aboutinsider, muziquemagazine or dailymusicroll - which created false profiles of fake people as journalists, are reliable sources? Literally the *only* way to have items published on that site, which is done under a false name and false credentials is to pay them and even if it weren't, you cannot seriously be suggesting that publishing content under false identities is acceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see your WP:BLUDGEON here. I just edited the page and saved it. Since the edit touched every reference, it would have triggered the blacklist bot, or any automated process. It's not on on Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Which blacklist are you referring to? Link please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Hype, like the others is that they don't identify their editorial staff and what is paid from their actual content. More importantly it's a blog that calls itself a magazine - just do a search of "hype magazine" and Fiverr. I mean seriously, just look at their header, it's nonsense "the world's #1 digital magazine in stores now!"...not to mention the only way to get your music or review on there is to go here and pay either $300 or $100 or via SEO hires or this: We do request a small fee to pay our writers to review your product. Simply all but one source here and in the article (aside from the itunes and listing) are paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my previous statement, the fact is The Hype Magazine is still being used on Wikipedia as a source for other articles. Sweetteaplz (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it isn't blacklisted yet isn't relevant. The fact that a crappy source is used in another article isn't relevant, it just means it needs cleanup. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevancy is if it can be used for another musician's article, it should able to be used for her's, that's all. Sweetteaplz (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nonsensical argument. If a non-qualifying source is being used to bolster the notability of the subject in another article, then there had better be multiple other qualifying sources in that article. My emphasis is intentional: there is a large difference between an article simply including a citation, and a citation as one of the foundations of the article's notability. If the latter, the proper answer is not "Oh, well, the source is valid then." It's that the notability of the other subject is questionable as well.

Beyond that, when you claim above that a source uses pay-for-promo doesn't mean that the subject's team has done so: that's entirely irrelevant. The point under discussion isn't whether the artist or her personal entourage is involved in advertising hype. It's whether a source that exists on such payments is reliable. By Wikipedia rules, it most certainly is not. Your time would be better expended here by finding solid, reliable qualifying sources which bolster your article's notability, especially since curiously enough, fighting this AfD seems to be your sole activity on Wikipedia. Would you care to disclose any WP:COI issues? Ravenswing 07:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said in my previous argument, there is a WP:reliable source with Hip Hop Weekly used as well. Maybe you could help me understand, without using the pay-for-promo point since it's irrelevant, how exactly is The Hype Magazine not WP:reliable? Isn't it independent of the subject too? If not, then why is it still being used as a source for other articles? And I didn't claim anyone used pay for promo. As for WP:COI I literally just made this account two days ago, there wouldn't be a lot under my activity. If you could point out difference between an article simply including a citation, and a citation as one of the foundations of the article's notability and which rule that applies to on here? I understand what your saying but is that an official guideline? Sweetteaplz (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidae already answered your question about the Hype Magazine above. As far as what goes into a reliable source generally, if you're citing WP:RS -- which you just did -- then you ought to be familiar with its content (and as it says in a large honking block at the top of the page, it is indeed an official guideline). A source, to be considered "reliable," must be independent AND published AND have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Now: why is the Hype Magazine being used as a source in other articles? For the same reason as here -- to try to find some source, any source, to make a new article look good, and hope people don't examine them too closely.

As far as the difference between how citations are used, that's simple. A primary, non-independent source can be used for information about the subject. For instance, a university's website is a valid source for biographical details about a coach it employs -- birthdate, birthplace, prior positions and the like; it's unlikely to be inaccurate about such things. But that website can't be used to support the subject's notability, which is an entirely different thing. Ravenswing 09:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. However, Wikipedia claims reliability of sources fall on a spectrum and editors use their judgement to determine. WP:REPUTABLE In which way can you determine the validation for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for The Hype Magazine? Many articles actually use The Hype Magazine as a reliable source I've also found and it's clearly :known. Plus Hip Hop Weekly qualifies as reliable, doesn't that satisfy WP:GNG? Along with other sources and a general search of the subject? Sweetteaplz (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One classic way of gauging the reliability of a source is simple: how many reliable sources mention or cite it? Find us (say) an article in Rolling Stone stating that The Hype Magazine is reliable. And that being said, I'll repeat what I said above: that other articles use a suspect source does not make the source reliable; it makes those articles suspect. Ravenswing 06:25, 23 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Cate&oldid=958975057"