Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Clyde

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. It took some relists, but it seems like the consensus here is that the sources offered do not establish notability due to not meeting WP:SIGCOV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Clyde[edit]

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

Cat Clyde (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NMUSIC. She's not automatically notable just because the article says she toured, as NMUSIC requires a concert tour to be the subject of reliable source media coverage (e.g. concert reviews) and not just technically verified by a blog; she's not notable just because she got streams on Spotify, as NMUSIC doesn't take streaming media into account at all -- a person has to have an actual hit on a real IFPI-certified national pop chart, not just an impressive-sounding number of plays on an internet streaming platform, to be notable for having a "hit"; and she's not automatically notable just because her song was once selected to soundtrack a television commercial, if your only source for that is a YouTube copy of the commercial rather than a newspaper or music magazine article about it. And three of the four sources here are the YouTube commercial, the blog and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself rather than being written about in the third person -- and while there is one source here (Fader) that's actually worth something, it isn't worth enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable source you can come up with: even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires more than just one source of that calibre. Every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple sources cited. And I just checked Wikipedia to find info about her, which seems like what Wikipedia is supposed to be here for. NoahB (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not just count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number — we test the sources for their type, their depth, their reliability and their context, and delete anything that doesn't have enough of the correct kind of sources. A Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself does not count as support for notability, a video clip of her song on YouTube does not count as support for notability, and blogs do not count as support for notability. And also, Wikipedia is not here for just maintaining an article about everybody who exists — to clear the bar for a Wikipedia article, a person has to have several pieces of a certain specific kind of coverage (third-party journalism), in a certain specific kind of reliable sources (real daily newspapers and major music magazines), which verifies that she has accomplished something that passes WP:NMUSIC. But there's only one source here which meets the first two tests (but still fails to meet the third), and one source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Huge numbers of plays on Spotify but not much else. Found this:[1], [2] I think it is a case WP:TOOSOON. I think she probably is notablish but not according to the notability criteria on Wikipedia, i.e. not coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV at the moment. scope_creepTalk 09:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the CBC source is from the CBC's local station in her own local media market, not from the national network, so it's not a notability clincher if it's the best source anybody can show — and it's a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, rather than being written about in the third person. And the Yahoo source is also a Q&A interview, so it's not a magic source either. So I'm not sure why you started out saying "weak keep", but then formulated what's fundamentally much more of a delete argument — those sources aren't actually tipping the scales at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of those are {a) Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and thus not sources that contribute GNG points, (b) unreliable sources that do not contribute GNG points, or (c) very short blurbs that are not substantive enough to contribute GNG points. GNG is not just "two or more footnotes exist" — it tests the sources for a lot more than just their number. It tests for whether a source is a real, reliable media publication or a mere blog; it tests for whether a source represents third party journalism or the subject talking about herself; it tests for the geographic range of how widely she's getting covered; it tests for how long or short a piece is; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per @Bearcat:. , I think people fail to realize the simple formula “In-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The subject of our discussion doesn’t qualify for inclusion with the aforementioned yardsticks. Celestina007 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The purponderance of Q and A interviews do indicate a certain level of success and minor celebrity on the artist. However, the lack of independent reviews suggest that this is WP:TOOSOON. WP:SIGCOV is not met.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having read them and looked at them, they are all indicative of musician right at the very beginning of her career. On top of that social media statistics at 9k odd followers on Instagram and 36k odd on YouTube, nothing substantial anywhere else. Again all indicative of a lassie at the start of her career. A search of coverage turns up zero quality references. There is a minor entry at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but that is it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO.scope_creepTalk 11:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NEXIST the RSs in trade publications, Flood Magazine, Complex Magazine The Fader. Some editor should add the WP:RSs found in this AfD. I do not think I have time Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complex is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and Flood magazine is a very short blurb and not a substantive source. So both of them could be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after she had already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but neither of them is a source that counts for anything toward getting her over GNG in the first place. GNG counts the number of substantive sources that are being written about her in the third person, not just the number of web pages that can be shown to have her name in them. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 09:26, 25 November 2019 (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/Cat_Clyde&oldid=928908333"