Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Moistly

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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable policy-based argument that sources provided are sufficient for the article to be kept. Whether this would be better presented by being merged somewhere can be further discussed elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Moistly

[edit]

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

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

Simply fails WP:NSINGLE. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fais WP:NSINGLE. It has received much coverage from many WP:RS news outlets, and even the PM himself tweeted about it. It is a significant quote in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Félix An (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having a few reliable sources about it does not make it notable enough for a standalone article outright. Fails its three criteria and then some. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Weak Redirect to the relevant section of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. This is notable enough for the mention there. If people want to know what it is all about they can read about it there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl Kerrigan: Hello! I added a reception section noting it went viral and was viewed over a million times in a day. I also added reviews from CBC, I Heart Radio, Narcity, and the Daily Hive. Would you be willing to take another look and see if that changes your mind in any way? Not trying to pester; just curious of that would make a difference. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see "the song" has been covered in some WP:RS. I tend to think that is more for the comedic value, novelty that Trudeau said that and it was awkward (ie more for the event than the song). I do not have strong feelings either way, but I think the relevance of "Speaking Moistly" is more the event (and the reaction to it, including the song) and less the song itself. Of course sometimes these things go viral like the Bed Intruder Song, not sure we can say the "Speaking Moistly" song really has though. I tend to think its notability (or fame) is secondary to the event itself.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl Kerrigan: Thanks for reasessing. We're now up to 11 sources about the song, with only two about the speech (without mentioning the song) to provide context in the article. I've added HuffPost and Brave Words as well as a covers section; I didn't realize at first there have been multiple covers of the song, which I think lends itself for me !voting keep even more. --Kbabej (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The song has got a decent amount of coverage and I gather over 2 million views (not sure what qualifies as "viral" these days). Anyway, I am changing/clarifying my !vote to "weak" redirect if that is a thing. If an article is to be left to exist, I am not sure its focus should be this one remix (as opposed to Trudeau's statement and ALL the reacions including this remix, other songs - whether covers, or original riffs on Trudeau's words - and t-shirts, lip balm, beer etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see expanding the scope as interesting as an article about the song, and, as I stated on the talk page, "the song has gotten far more coverage than, say, the lip balm. There are 13 sources about the song so far. Could you say the same for the lip balm? I think this article makes more sense as an article about the song, not about the phrase in general." --Kbabej (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if you don't "want" to expand the scope of the article, that said that isn't really up to you (or me). That said, suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix, is simply not true. Its awkwardness was noted by many, Trudeau included, before the remix existed. And there have been many reactions not directly related to the remix, including the sale of novelty masks, t-shirts, beer, and lip balm, as well as other meme's and videos including this kids video about "moist breath zone", this Fake Heritage Minute, this Hair Flip video, this Stratford actors 'speak moistly' video, this "cover" by Ska Band among others. And frankly its notability is less without the other reactions or being about Trudeau actually saying it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you support this article or not at this point. You've made your position clear: expand it to the comment and all associated responses, or you want it redirected. I think this article stands on its own, and I think it should be kept in the scope as the starting editor intended. As for your comment "suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix", who argued that, and where? Because I certainly didn't. My argument this entire has been there are enough RS to keep the remix article as an article about the song without widening the scope. If you want an article on the reaction of the phrase and all associated products, WP:BEBOLD and create one. No one is stopping you. If consensus is that this article should be expanded to cover the phrase and all associated reactions, the AfD should be withdrawn as the article would be eligible for WP:HEYMANN. --Kbabej (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is prudent to start a Speaking moistly (event) page until there is a wider discussion of the scope here. That might result in unnecessary move, deletion and merge discussions, which might be avoided if we get down to brass-tax about whether this article should be about the event. Perhaps input from others will help reach a consensus on how best to proceed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am going to change my vote to a Weak Keep. I freely admit that I don't have a good policy based reason for doing so, but I would like to keep this piece of Canadiana around. Perhaps, now I have just watched too many of the "cover videos" on YouTube, and noticed that the single has made it onto Spotify. It is an interesting piece of internet culture, that has got some coverage in WP:RS and has an interesting link to Canadian politics and the "history" of COVID-19. Not sure it quite passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGLE, but I am also not sure batting away all the coverage it has received as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is fair either. Anyway, it is a very soft keep, for me now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NSINGLE states "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The three criteria the nominator is referencing is father down in the NSINGLE criteria, which states "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." My understanding of NSINGLE is that if a song/single meetins GNG and satisfies the first criteria, they do not necessarily have to meet one of the three criteria (those being: 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. 2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.) The song has been covered by the sources in the article (CBC, The Star, Toronto City News, Narcity), and additional sources as well that are not yet incorporated into the article as of writing this: I Heart Radio, I Heart Radio (again), National Post, and Daily Hive. --Kbabej (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Hive isn't a reliable or notability-supporting source — it's essentially a blogified version of a tabloid, which means it violates two of our core principles about what it takes to be a reliable source (the operative words being "blog" and "tabloid", if you didn't figure that out.) Narcity, same. iHeartRadio Canada also is not a notability-making news outlet — it's just the platform on which all Bell Media-owned radio stations have their self-published websites hosted, which means everything that any local radio personality in Canada blogs about on his or her own station's website will always automatically have an "iHeartRadio Canada" URL by definition. So it doesn't constitute evidence of GNG-making media coverage either, because it's not an entity that does news reporting — it still just amounts to blogging by non-journalists. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. But there's also The Toronto Star, CBC News x2, CityNews Toronto, The Loop, Exclaim!, Brave Words, and HuffPost. It's varied enough coverage for me, and I stand by my keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian pandemic article as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NSINGLE. Not sure a few clickbait Headliners are sufficient for coverage of an unreleased uncharted song that has zero historical value. This is one of many like this..... Donald Trump song telling us to consume bleach has ten times more hits.--Moxy 🍁 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per points above. Many of the available sources aren't considered reliable. The ones that make mention could support a redirect/merge, but I don't see enough to justify such a random song. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the national media coverage this garnered from reputable sources and acknowledgment from the Prime Minister himself, information on this subject should be preserved. Keeping it as its own article makes it easier to find and navigate. Cmm3 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Odd was going to say the same thing but with a different conclusion WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about it, I think this is not as sound of an argument as I would think it is. I think this is a marginal case, so I'm changing my vote to weak redirect. Username6892 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 31 May 2020 (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/Speaking_Moistly&oldid=1069003368"