Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) → B music  ian  00:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cat Daddy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article doesn't meet the guidelines for notability and verifiability. I has no chart perfomance, the original performer, 'The Rej3ctz' doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, and most of the information on here relies on YouTube, which is not a reliable source. It has been deleted three times per CSD A9. Hahc21 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I have not seen prior versions of this article, but it now passes WP:GNG regardless of chart performance or original performer. As I look at the footnotes, I fail to understand the point about it relying on YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets the WP:GNG by far. WP:NSONG is the special notability guideline (SNG) for songs that says, if a song meets these requirements, then it is notable, but that doesn't mean there aren't songs that don't meet those requirements that aren't notable themselves (too many negatives?). This is one example of such a song. For comparison, see Freakum Dress as one of the best examples of a song that doesn't meet NSONG, but is notable on its own. Silver  seren C 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The guideline says that if a song is not notable, then it must redirect to its parent album. To meet notability, it must chart or become a subject of culture on some country or society. Otherwise, and article about the song is irrelevant. Also, per the CSD A9, a song which main performer doesn't have an article is candidate for deletion. Also, on the guidelines for verifiability, YouTube is only considered a source for music videos, relying on VEVO channels. Otherwise, it is as reliable as any blog. --Hahc21 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, if you take a look at the article's talk page, on the article milestones, it appears deleted twice on June 2011, and one time May 2012, totalizing three times. So there were prior versions of this article. Also, on the same talk page, a deletion log details which user and under which guideline the article was deleted. --Hahc21 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep pointing out that prior versions were deleted. This article is likely to pass at WP:GAC. Don't compare this to the prior versions that were deleted. This song and dance are very modestly notable, but there is didactic content in this article teach the precise modest notability. In fact, I suggest that you please review the footnotes section and consider withdrawing this nomination. It should be quite clear to you that if you look more closely at the footnotes that this article is not based on YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the past deleted versions because you said there weren't, shich is not true. I've read the footnotes many times. As you might know, i reviewed the article when it was nominated at GA. I'm not trying to get the article deleted per my personal opinion, which is also unfair. I'm just asking the community their thoughts about the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about. I never said their weren't past deleted versions. I put them on the talk page. As far as your reviews go, since you are picking a fight rather than doing a review, I will renominate without making changes and put a note at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations explaining why I am doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey i'm not taking a fight. I never meant to fight with you. As i've seen, i'm only dialoguing with you to reach a consensus about the article. If it's deleted or not, it's not the matter. What i wantet to know, as i said, is what community can say about the article rather than my personal opinion. Please do not missunderstand my statements. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean to dialog please tell me the number of footnotes you see in the "Kate Upton version" section and how many are from YouTube? Then tell me how you calculate 90%.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of them are from YouTube. I know. But, as an example: the ref #16 has more useful info than only the sentence you wrote. The same with ref #17, #18 and #19. You need to expand the info as long as you can so the reader understand clearly the matter. And i repeat. i'm not fighting. I'm not that kind of users that fight others without hearing anything. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They were deleted before because they didn't give an indication of importance, likely they were just single line, unreferenced sentences. But WP:NSONG specifically says that if a song shows why it is important or significant, then it can't be speedied. And through the current article's references, it shows that. And the Youtube sources in the article are only being used to cite number of views for said video, which has routinely been upheld as allowed, since anyone can verify the numbers by checking the video themselves. Silver  seren C 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but about 90% of the article is written in accordance with the information retrieved from YouTube, which is not meant by the guideline as fair. The entire "Kate Upton version" section is written only with stats from YouTube, when only saying "the video has more than 5 millino views on YouTube" is more than enough. More than a speddy deletion, as a wrote on the GA review, this article needs cleanup of overcharge of repetitive and redundant information. I'm confident that after the cleanup is done, only 5 to 10 lines will make the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you lying or just stupid? That section has 11 footnotes and only one of them was published by YouTube.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you came into insults, i'll leave it as this. The community will make the choice. If my point is not correct, i'll accecpt it, that's why i proposed it at first. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is as insulting to me that you would make up lies to fail my article as it is to you that I call you a liar. You know full well that 3 out of 20 is not 90%.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, i exagerated. And even i didn't failed the article for that. As per the GA guideline, unreliable sources can be changed later if the article meets the rest of the criteria. The article failed because of prose, notability andstructure. As well as "Zou Bisou Bisou". If you fix the prose and structure issues, to pass the GA process, it'll still need to meet song notability, regardless of the YouTube sources. As you said the other 17 sources coem from very well known media outlets, so there will be no issue with them. I also recommend to expand the article and get it copyedited as i wrote on the review :). --Hahc21 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note, only 3 of them are Youtube: 8, 9, and 20, the rest are not. Though I think he means that the section itself is all info about stats, which is rather irrelevant. Silver  seren C 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear 3 of the 20 in the whole article are YouTube and only 1 in the section he is pointing to are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * TonyTheTiger, may I remind you of no personal attacks, please? Asking somebody if they are stupid isn't very constructive. Address the content, not the editor. Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a rare case, but I concede that throwing out the term stupid was inappropriate. I apologize.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize either. I recognize i got too far with the YouTube thing. Excuse myself. Of course, be sure that i review the articles on the most neutral way possible. I never fail articles just because i want. But, finally, i apologize for my exagerations. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You went to far failing this at WP:GAC and nominating this for deletion, but I do accept your apology.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had very good reasons (based only on guidelines) for failing the article. I didn't failed because of YouTube. I know i went far by nominating it for deletion, but not at failing it. As it is right now, it doesn't meet the criteria. -- Hahc21 [ TALK ]  [  CONTRIBS  ] 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Going by some of the article's better sources: MTV, LA Times , ABC News , and Fox News all contain significant coverage. The subject's notability appears to exist more as a "dance move" than as a "song", so I'm not too concerned whether or not this meets WP:NSONG; more importantly, it meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow  Talk 00:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Didn't this survive AFD just a week or two ago? If so, what was the name it had then, since this isn't "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy (2nd nomination)"?  Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Gongshow's sources. Notable as a subject, just not necessarily as a song. Meets the WP:GNG, which is most important. Sergecross73   msg me   13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article looks in pretty bad shape. I'm gathering this is a single/song? It's a bit hard to tell. If it's a single/song, and it didn't chart (from what I can see it didn't) then I will vote delete as it fails notability. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Freakum Dress" is very different. Multiple live performances on different tours and it got a music video. It also received a lot more information by way of reviews etc. To be honest I am leaning toward delete for this article as it doesn't have what "Freakum Dress" has. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are three questions to ask. Is this a notable song? Is this a notable dance? and Is this a notable viral video? It must pass at least one of those three to be kept. I believe it surely passes 3 and based on stuff added to the talk page, it passes 1. It might not pass 2, but it only has to pass one of the three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG based on coverages in suitable sources for the topic. Previous deletes are irrelevant, as the first was an improper delete 1 minute after creation when the article only contained 1 header.  The second delete killed off a copyright infringement.  Everything is restored and in the history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This nomination is officially wasting WP resources. It should be withdrawn or WP:SNO closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.