Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purr by Katy Perry


 * 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 redirect to Katy Perry. Consensus that these topics are not notable, however they are mentioned at Perry's article. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Purr by Katy Perry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable (WP:PROMO). Straight-up advertisement, fancruft and puffery, which is what Wikipedia is not. Being endorsed by Katy Perry, a notable singer, does not make this notable. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge Could be a subsection in the singer's article, nothing notable about the scent alone. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Katy Perry these are all mentioned on her main page, and are viable search terms, so I feel this is the best compromise without going against WP:PROMO or adding any details there that might border on advertising. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Katy Perry per SNUGGUMS. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to Katy Perry, the articles are messes that serve only to promote a product. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, being a good article, thought ARSeditors may be interested....... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the first one. As Coolabahapple pointed out it is listed as "Social sciences and society good articles" and also was a Did You Know.  It has multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage.  I just clicked the Wikipedia reliable sources search at the top of the INH and found another https://people.com/style/exclusive-katy-perry-goes-wild-behind-the-scenes-at-her-purr-fragrance-shoot/ Not sure why it was nominated with the rest of these.   D r e a m Focus  02:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Mad Potion also. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katy-perry-launches-mad-potion-810816 https://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-katy-perry-20150816-story.html   D r e a m Focus  02:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than the two sources (People is not very reliable...) I don't see anything that could add substance to these articles. The Hollywood Reporter piece is news report which Wikipedia is not. Also I am not seeing how it could significantly expand these articles. I don't think you can keep the first one just because it is a GA and was nominated for DYK. It can be delisted. HĐ (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews with a perfume's creator don't count towards notability regardless of how much depth the pieces give because those are just self-promotion, so those links from The Hollywood Reporter and Los Angeles Times aren't enough to maintain an article. Not sure what to say about the People link when it partially rehashes a press release from her. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of just writing about something, they took the time to interview the person, and gave them coverage for what they considered notable. That's how notability is determined on Wikipedia, what the media decides is noteworthy, we then allow articles for.   D r e a m Focus  20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles just focusing on the perfumes themselves are actually more likely to be counted towards notability. Instead of primary sources (what THR and LA Times are in this case), WP:GNG says we should strive for coverage from secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That also excludes "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Every article ever written about any media or item is advertising. Movies, books, television shows, music, toys, games, fashion, anything being reviewed, or those creating them interviewed about them, its all the same.  If she was talking about a song of hers instead of a perfume, would it make any difference to you?  Reliable sources that cover fashion, makeup, perfume, and other girl things, do count towards notability.  These things are commonly reviewed by them, just as a video game website would review notable games.  Whichever they choose to give coverage to, passed the general notability guidelines.  When they review a movie they also review the people who created it, and interview them as well.  Same thing.  Also "independent of the subject" means not owned by them or otherwise connected, it has nothing to do with interviews.   D r e a m Focus  20:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Critics reviewing someone's work/product isn't the same thing as a creator discussing it. Pieces where she discusses her own music wouldn't count towards notability either because that's not a third-party making any comments/analysis on the matter. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its about getting coverage, nothing else. They think she's notable enough to give her that much print in their publication, and aren't being paid to do so, then it counts towards the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  20:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an oversimplification. In order to warrant articles, said coverage must come from third parties, and credible ones at that. It also cannot just be a brief passing mention (e.g. a cumulative paragraph or less wouldn't be enough). <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Snuggums that the other editor is downplaying the importance of "independent of the subject" criterion as listed at WP:GNG (coverage should exclude works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The Hollywood Reporter interview is a type of pressing advertisement, thus it is nowhere near "independent of the subject". That is a completely different case from a critical review. HĐ (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.