Talk:Kate McCarthy

Requested move 10 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that of the topics named "Kate McCarthy" covered by Wikipedia, this one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Kate McCarthy (footballer) → Kate McCarthy – Footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The character's link has no information apart from the actor and year the character appeared, and the director has even less — that she directed one show which an actress appeared in. A Google search for 'Kate McCarthy Emmerdale' returns nothing related apart from WP and clones, as does one for 'Kate McCarthy director'. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Considering Kate McCarthy (footballer) is the only Kate McCarthy with an article, I agree she is the primary topic. There isn't really a competing topic. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Kate McCarthy the footballer does not have enough coverage to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there are three other people with the same name of, in my opinion, similar coverage level; the only individual coverage is that she has a pacemaker, all others are trivial mentions as part of playing football. In addition, although the AFL Women's is new and generating some coverage, the page views are no where in comparison to a lot of other topics on Wikipedia (especially entertainment topics), coupled with the fact that she is a relatively unknown player in the league to most people. Emmerdale is a popular show and List of past Emmerdale characters generates over 300 views per day, I'm obviously not saying they're all for Kate McCarthy, but the point I'm making is it is a popular show which people may search Kate McCarthy with the intention of finding the character. The main reason I'm opposed to the view that Kate McCarthy the footballer is the primary topic is because when doing a google search of just Kate McCarthy, the author is the first five hits and the person box on the right is the author, my google search bias is geared towards football, which further reiterates the lack of coverage for the footballer. All the authors books are relatively recent, so I'm assuming the article has just not been made yet and her redlink should be included on the Kate McCarthy dab page. I've also seen move discussions in the past where a page is kept with a dab even though all other links were a red link, because we should remember that the purpose of a redlink is the intention for the page to be created, and these other pages just may not have been created yet. In the future, the footballer may generate enough coverage to be the primary topic, but as it currently stands, I don't think she has generated enough coverage to separate herself from the other three people to be the primary topic. Flickerd (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Further comment I've just done a bit of further research about Kate McCarthy the author and one of her books appeared on the USA Today Bestselling list so I'd assume readers of her books would probably search Wikipedia trying to find her, which may be more people than people trying to find the footballer. Flickerd (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know much about Emmerdale, but the fictional Kate McCarthy seems to be a minor character as she is not mentioned in the Emmerdale article. On the other hand, the football Kate McCarthy is a significant character in AFLW as she is the second-highest scorer in the league, shown heavily in highlights, and featured in news articles.

You're kind of WP:CBALLing in your argument that maybe in the future there will be an article about the other Kate McCarthy. It's also possible that football Kate McCarthy will rise in notability... we just don't know (maybe she'll capitalize on her fame by writing a book or something). I don't pay too much attention to the regular Google search because that seems to be geared more towards marketing and self-promotion (any online marketing guru will tell you it's easy to get to the top of the Google list), and because WP is not seeking to be Google. When I do a Gnews search (which editors more often use as evidence of notability), four of the first five hits are football Kate McCarthy, and three of them have her as the headline. The author Kate McCarthy had a book on the weekly USA Today bestseller for one week in 2015, and it immediately dropped off – and they list the top 150, so that's a long list. That could easily have been a little manipulation by her publisher. Anyway, if the situation changes and some other Kate McCarthy becomes famous, it's easy enough to move the article again. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it's crystal ball at all because I've seen on multiple occasions where football articles haven't been created because they just haven't been made yet, not because they lack notability but just haven't been done yet, and I'm saying that could very well be the case for the author or the director, but I don't write articles or have involvement in director/author type articles so I'm not sure how they judge notability. I'm taking it for what it is at the moment, and Kate McCarthy the footballer does not have a lot of independent coverage and regardless of how long someone is on a best selling list, it still means she has sold enough books to get there and it is very plausible people will search for her on Wikipedia. The footballer does not have enough coverage at the moment and we should be treating it that way, not whether she will write a book in the future and capitalise on her fame, and I said that in the original comment that if she rises in notability then she will definitely be the primary topic, but at the moment she hasn't enough to separate herself from the others. Flickerd (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Does it make a difference to you that author Kate McCarthy is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR? One week on US Today list doesn't even come close to notability. She's a pulp romance novelist. Adding her as a redlink is way too much WP:REDNOT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I had a look at WP:NAUTHOR before the edit and the way I read it there was a possibility she meets it considering she was on a best seller list, I didn't know it was just the one week. I would never have created the article as I do not have enough involvement in that project. If someone in the project felt that it was WP:REDNOT and removed it, then that's fine, I'm just trying to help grow Wikipedia. It was all well intended and wasn't done at all to be pointed in this discussion. Flickerd (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• We agree about making a decision based on notability at the moment. The difference is that you believe football Kate isn't quite notable enough at the moment to have (footballer) left off the end of her name. I think that we lack any other notable Kate McCarthy at the moment, so the simpler title is preferable and hatnotes are cheap. I understand it is all in good faith, I have much respect for your edits and opinion. It's even possible that we are splitting hairs. Kate McCarthy herself would probably be fine with being Kate McCarthy (footballer)! Basically, it's just more efficient (for future readers) if we choose someone as primary topic, and use a hatnote. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The footballer is barely notable, just created, and yet never-the-less is almost certainly more likely to be sought than the other uses, given the references in reliable sources, and page views[1]. If we turn out to be wrong we can always revisit in a few months, but this is supported by reliable source usage and page views today, and is likely to stand. --В²C ☎ 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Clear primary topic, may be only just about notable, but the others do not even have an article. If they ever do get one we can revisit this issue. PatGallacher (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Clear primary topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most disambiguation pages do not have a primary topic simply because no entry on the dab page is sufficiently notable for such elevation. Kate McCarthy is certainly an example of such a dab page. The nine-sentence stub comprising the footballer entry does not rise to the level of primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Now named an All-Australian, which may elevate her for some people. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.