Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katalina

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katalina[edit]

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

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

Only reference is a Billboard Hot 100 chart from 1996. It seems the claim to notability is that her song peaked at #86 but in my opinion that’s way too low. Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40. Either way there is no general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist is notable if they have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart," and WP:GOODCHARTS cites the Billboard Hot 100. #86 on the Hot 100 almost certainly means a higher ranking on a genre-specific chart, which would would also qualify as a "national music chart," per WP:USCHARTS. However, the article obviously needs more sources. If it turns out that the Billboard chart is the ONLY reliable source, I might support deletion, but the Hot 100 placement implies that other sources exist, though they might be a little hard to find since it's a 25-year-old song. Niftysquirrel (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only other source that exists is a defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago; even if she had continued her career it doesn’t offer anything beyond some trivia. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Trillfendi, can you support your statement that there is only one other source that exists? That seems like an awfully bold claim considering this is from the very earliest days of the internet, and very little print material from this era has been digitized. I also disagree with the statement "Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40." I must have missed this discussion. If that's personal perspective that's fine. I would modify that to "unquestioned notability starts at Top 40", but per WP:MUSICBIO #2 this topic has a certain amount of presumed notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: a throrough googling shows failure of sustained notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Niftysquirrel on the interpretation of the Billboard Hot 100. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Niftysquirrel. Also, there are other sources: https://www.ocweekly.com/where-are-they-now-remember-katalina-aka-the-djs-girl-6573576/ http://milkcartonpopstars.blogspot.com/2008/03/im-with-dj.html Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheijiashaojun: Are people down here not understanding that when I said "defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago" that doesn’t offer anything beyond trivia, this is the one I was referring to? (OC Weekly went out of business in 2019. It’s generous to even include it in the conversation of coverage—as the only option.) If this is all you can find or muster up that’s exactly the problem here. Trillfendi (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Please be civil. No, I didn't know that's what you were talking about, because you weren't particularly clear. Sources don't cease to be sources when they go out of business. I also gave another source. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Billboard calling her a "teen diva." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nAkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=katalina+%22thump+records%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2kuuyuLLyAhUbMN4KHdSTCWYQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=katalina%20%22thump%20records%22&f=false Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic is notable as the artist appears on the Billboard Hot 100. There are myriads of music researchers, musicologists, and collectors for whom this achievement has great significance, and will seek to find further information on the topic because it will be listed in Pop Chart Alminacs going forward. Frankly the vast majority of the article should be removed because it fails WP:V. However, when that is removed more than a dictionary definition (i.e. "Katalina was a pop singer from the 1990s") will be left, and any information is better than none. I would be fine with merging the content elsewhere per WP:PRESERVE, but a decent target is not coming to mind. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:30, 22 August 2021 (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.