Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Gately

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. There is a general consensus that the evidence for overall notability of the subject is sufficient. This AfD clearly endorses the existence of the article, though not necessarily the current state of some of its content, which may require further discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Gately

[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)

may or may not be notable as a musician, but this article is essentially over-personal PR- DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google news search shows that this subject meets WP:GNG. AfD is not clean up. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for my information, which of the references in the current article do you consider RSs. ? DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, Pitchfork, Paste, The Quietus, Resident Advisor, and Tiny Mix Tapes are all listed as generally reliable for music-related articles. I have added several reviews, including from The Guardian, Paste, and Pitchfork, as well as a 2016 interview from the Guardian. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Gately 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, and per WP:NMUSICOTHER, she appears to be frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Beccaynr (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Think of a musical artist as a kind of author. We allow notability for authors to be based, in part, on book reviews so the reviews of the subjects music by reliable sources should be allowed. This sealed my assessment which was leaning delete before looking at the sources provided by Beccaynr above. Had it only been the interviews and a few mentions, even in reliable sources, I probably would have went with delete. The additional sources (reviews) leads me to believe the subject is notable and passes both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. --ARose Wolf 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Coment. If kept, I will remove the promotional quotations. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Beccaynr (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - And I removed the namedropping section on influences, which should be based on third party criticism not what the person says about themself. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:BRD and WP:BASIC, which permits the use of primary sources, I have reverted the deletion of the content from reliable sources and encourage discussion on the article Talk page about how to refine the content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it's a primary source, but including whatever the person wants to say about themselves is the key characteristic of a promotional interview. As I said in my nomimination, I can't judge the notability in this field -- the reason for my nomination waa the promotionalism, and restoring it after I tried to remove it confirms that as the basic intent of the article. promotionalism doesnt only mean by the subject as in paid editing--it can also mean by fans or supporters. The place for her to say what she claims to influence her is her own web site. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But if you review the sources, (Quietus, Guardian), there is more in them than those quotes, including commentary by the interviewer and biographical information, so I think the content could be reworked without simply deleting the sources. I just don't have the time at the moment to focus on it, and it does not seem helpful to delete reliable sources that include other content in the midst of a deletion discussion. You can tag the section with your concerns in the meantime if you wish, but it does not seem helpful to the AfD discussion to remove sources that include support for Gately's notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because I thought they weakened the article. But I recognize that WP articles on performers often contain a considerably greater degree of promotionalism and self-quotation that is accepted in most other biographies, and I'm not likely to try to chance practices in af ield which is of very peripherial interest to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I accidentally closed this before I realized I was the first person to comment. Oops! I reopened it to let a non-associated reviewer to close. Sorry folks. Missvain (talk) 18:07, 6 June 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.