Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misscatylove

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. RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misscatylove[edit]

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

Misscatylove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability found, mostly primary sources (Twitter, Soundcloud), blogs, or short mentions. Fram (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies for WP:MUS for coverage on Wiwibloggs and Eurovisionworld, two verified sources for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision (which is the project at hand), as well as several other sources not listed on the article; "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician [...] itself". There's also the element of recent relevance surrounding their entry. Lavren2002 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the dubiousness of seeing something like Wiwibloggs as a good enough source; the Eurovisionworld source is an extremely passing mention, not a source where Misscatylove is actually the subject. Fram (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently fails WP:BLP1E, that event being the Moldovan selection for Eurovision 2022, which this person has (been?) withdrawn from. Information in this article should be merged into Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Misscatylove simply isn't notable enough to have their own article. Granfcanuon (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually believe that they do, judging by their notability to the Eurovision Song Contest. I do not oppose merging with Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, but a scandal of this magnitude is notable for at least its own section, in my perception probably an article as well (since there's notability to the 2023 selection as well). I've now added more reliable sources to the article to back up previously less credible parts of it. Please reconsider. Lavren2002 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That quote just shows how relevant she is to this one event. Were they to come back next year, publish music, and be covered in other publications for other events, they can get their own article. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but that event alone makes them notable enough, to me. Right now, and probably for a while now, "Misscatylove" is one of the most immediately recognised names to the Eurovision community because of how rapidly they became the centre of attention. And again, I can understand why this would be merged with the page for the 2022 Moldovan selection itself, but we could be killing two birds with one stone here. Lavren2002 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
  • Speedy delete - no indication of notability in the slightest. Coverage for one event (Moldova's NF) is absolutely not enough to make someone notable. This is so egregiously unnotable I'd go as far as to say it could be A7'd. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2.1 million views on Twitter is a credible claim of significance. Certainly not A7 material. Mlb96 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an unproven statement. The only citation the page used to claim their "song" has "2.1 million views" is a site which fails WP:UGC.Cyanhurricane (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The name "Misscatylove" was trending on Twitter in Israel and the United Kingdom, I know this much. It's not a credible claim of significance in itself at all, so I attempted to find a stable active link source to the amount of hits the keyword had on Twitter, which is in the millions. Also, on YouTube, combining the different views would bring you to hundreds of thousands if not millions (also, all in the first 24 hours the song was live). Lavren2002 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete - Troll page for someone who submitted 90 seconds of noise to a Moldovan Eurovision preselection. Cyanhurricane (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person has attracted a lot of attention, and got their own sections and walls of text in several credible articles. This is not something that will be forgotten easily, they are the center of one of the biggest scandals of the Eurovision national final season in recent memory and they deserve an article. ImStevan (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:fancruft. Cyanhurricane (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far from it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision is a major project that they played a crucial role in this year, and probably will again next year. Within the limits of the project they're a very notable character with more than enough independent coverage from sources accepted as reliable on the project (Wiwibloggs, Eurovoix, Aussievision, Eurovisionworld, Escxtra, Escbubble, etc.) – and all have covered the subject very extensively. Lavren2002 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
        • Whatever about the WikiProject and its significance, the aforementioned coverage in a few Eurovision blogs even if sufficient would fall under being notable for one event at best. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep because while WP:E1 is far from a guarantee of notability sufficient to create a biography for them, including the storyline within Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 is forced; there's no place to fit it in there (and the scandal itself is more broadly covered than the actual national selection). There are enough credible sources for a biography and I believe they're of greater importance, taking account the dimensions this story has reached over the past two days, than the national selection itself. Lavren2002 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, the "storyline" that has been covered in any source is the entrant withdrawing from the national selection. That is covered as the main subject in one Wiwibloggs article, one ESCBubble article and given passing mention in a few other articles that are about the broad entrant itself. There's no indication of a "scandal" anywhere, just a withdrawal. Finally, on the topic of there being enough "credible sources", I'll reflect back to the fact the coverage is two articles in Eurovision fan sites, and a passing mention in other sites. Even taking this at its best, if there was to be enough coverage of the singer withdrawing, that alone is not enough to even pay lip service to creating an article. If there's no place to fit it in as you say, then perhaps it's not meant to be fit into Wikipedia. For example, look at how Anna Book's disqualification from Melodifestivalen 2016 was handled. No biography, just a line to state that it was disqualified. That's what's needed here, not a fully fledged article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anna Book has her own biography, where that event is listed in 3-4 sentences, and that was a much smaller deal. Wiwibloggs, Eurovoix, Escxtra and Escbubble – probably the four biggest news outlets when it comes to Eurovision – all made an entire news story about their withdrawal. The withdrawal is not just an Anna Book case where someone is disqualified for this and that; this was a song that was extremely controversial since the moment it was released, and went viral before and after the withdrawal. Two or three of the aforementioned news outlets also pointed out that it went viral. The WikiProject has its own guidelines and I have to imagine if this isn't enough for a biography, at the very least this should be an "incident" within the selection page (see Alabama Watchdog in Eesti Laul 2021). Lavren2002 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • The Anna Book example is of how a controversy itself is handled. Anna Book herself meets WP:SINGER and hence gets her own article. Also, once again, no indication of where the "controversy" or "scandal" you make references stems from, bar run of the mill coverage about a withdrawal. Going viral (for which I'd argue the sources are already dubious enough to discount it) is already covered by WP:GHITS. Again, taking this at its absolute best, if there was any reference to an actual scandal (which the article itself doesn't even make any mention of!), it'd be covered as you've said yourself as a few lines in the NF page, like Alabama Watchdog in EL 2021. But, there's no reference to any scandal like the lyrics in Alabama Watchdog, so no need. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because something is relevant to one project doesn't make it notable enough to merit an article for Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also want to point out that Lavren2002 is a writer at Wiwibloggs, according to her user page. Using Wiwibloggs sources for editing, and especially using them as an argument for an AfD like this, kinda constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To summarize: this falls under WP:BLP1E and also fails WP:NMUSIC. Nothing about the subject seems to be notable to me; "2 million views" is not a relevant criterion and neither source actually supports this claim-- one of them doesn't mention any numbers at all and the other one is seemingly a list of *every engagement* that *every user* who has ever mentioned them has received, and even then that tops off at 23,000. Furthermore, fan discussion is hardly a criterion of notability and equating that to views the subject has received (on what? Not their music, evidently) is misinformation at best. The top video result on Google for "Misscatylove" hasn't even hit a thousand views as of this comment, let alone two million. I'm also troubled by some of article creator Lavren's comments and actions, such as "that event alone makes them notable enough, to me" (again, BLP1E and NMUSIC), "their notability to the Eurovision Song Contest" (which is not relevant when we're on Wikipedia and not Eurovision Wikia, so I'm seconding the WP:fancruft here), and the attempted drafitication mid-AFD. Then there's also the potential COI that Mr. Gerbear has spotted. I've read no valid argument otherwise, so I'm on the side of deletion. Blue Edits (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment about Twitter views was only directed at someone bringing up A7, I wasn't trying to make a notability argument. Mlb96 (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same as all said above. Won't be notable in a week, let alone years into the future. Great example of WP:fancruft. I have a lot of respect for some people on this page, but I don't believe in good faith that they think Misscatylove is notable enough for a page.Toffeenix (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I said in Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page, this is a clear WP:Troll. It is enough to see the YT channel linked to the "artist" to understand that it is about a blatant troll who happened to be in the Moldovan selection by mistake. --- « Ðømīnīk • Cåpuån » 00:15, 27 January 2022 (CET)
  • Delete. Does not appear to be a notable contestant. As a member of WikiProject Eurovision myself, I do find the sources themselves to be reliable, however this participant is not a Eurovision contestant and does not align with our typical inclusion criteria. They attempted to take part in a local selection process only and this participation did not materialize due to stated personal reasons. I fail to see any sort of "controversy" surrounding this attempt to take part. As someone who also reads Eurovision fansites, I'll also make a somewhat anecdotal comment that I have never heard of this person. Grk1011 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this subject fails several notability guidelines and does not warrant inclusion here. As a member of WikiProject Eurovision as well I can concur that this would fail our own guidelines, and personally as well as someone that reads Eurovision publications I can't say I had heard of her prior to this AfD either. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the notability guidelines, more sources to be added. Timetraveller80 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2022 (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/Misscatylove&oldid=1069304102"