Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh!

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh![edit]

[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)

Non-notable song. Just scraped by on the NZ charts, doesn't appear to have landed anywhere else to date. Only SIGCOV on page is about it landing in a Toyota commercial. Per Richard3120 over here, the only other coverage I was able to find is also unreliable. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would seem to me that being the subject of multiple verifiable commercial uses would inch this towards WP:N. The repeated commercial use gave the song a familiarity to me, which made me feel something was amiss with this subject not being on WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would if there were SIGCOV for those other ads but, as I said, I couldn't find any in my own search. If another editor does then this may turn around.

Oh, and since I forgot to say so above, my vote is to redirect to Surfaces_(band)#Singles. QuietHere (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, California, and Texas. QuietHere (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surfaces (band)#Singles. The NZ chart position is absolutely trivial - it's not the main NZ chart, it's the "Bubbling Under" chart, and it still only spent one week there at a very low position, and this information is already included in the above redirect target. The Daily Dot and Chicago Tribune don't mention the song at all. The Times of India source is just a "hey, watch this video!" link. YouTube, Soundcloud and Apple don't make this song notable, they just show it exists. The rest are passing mentions or non-RS blogs. There is no in-depth, non-trivial coverage of this song. Richard3120 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I was cobbling the article together, I thought that this review might count as a WP:RS. Does the source benefit in some way based on what he says about the subjects or is he an individual with expertise on music who has decided to focus on objective reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking Richard at his word when he says "No way is Banger of the Day a reliable source - it's essentially a one-man blog run by an aspiring musician from North Carolina with occasional contributions from his friends." I'm not familiar with the page having only seen it appear once before in my editing, but I trust that confidence in its unreliability. QuietHere (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If that one does not count for much, how about this one. I concede that the Bangeroftheday does not necessarily meet WP:BLOGS. However, according to this the SPS blogger was a professional at "national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an exception to WP:SPS regarding subject-matter expertise, I'm not sure that applies here. My understanding is that that exception is usually reserved for academics, not radio programmers, and even when SME is established there are plenty of editors who will push back anyway (see the WP:ALBUMAVOID entry on The Needle Drop) for various reasons why other SPS are unacceptable such as lack of editorial oversight. This page appears to be a one-man blog which means there is zero independent editing involved, and I can't imagine that getting a pass from any music WP regulars.

It's also worth keeping in mind in general that when you really have to scrape the internet to find even the tiniest morsels of questionable-at-best coverage like this, your subject is probably not notable and you're better off not spending so much effort on it. QuietHere (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it part of a radio programmer's job to evaluate new music and determine which songs are worthy of airplay and which are not. I believe it is part of his job to evaluate unfamiliar music. In terms of Song content on WP, a person who evaluates music professionally for a national network seems to me to be a subject matter expert.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's still literally just two sentences announcing the release of the song – that's not in-depth coverage. And I think "worthy" is not the correct word to use here... radio programmers choose the songs that are acceptable to their target audience, not necessarily based on quality. He doesn't have to be an "expert" at anything, just pick songs that aren't offensive to Disney listeners. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not true. I was a college DJ. Choosing songs for airplay involves selecting from a vast array of new releases targeted to the audience. In my day when you had to physically deliver new music for consideration, The ratio was dozens of songs per song added to the rotation. I imagine with simplified digital delivery processes and streaming formats, the selection process could be 100s of songs to select from. It is not just choosing a couple of songs from a handful of possibilities. Radio programmers have great influence on what the world thinks are notable releases. This guy is an expert on notability for his target audience and his reviews are done using this expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. for some reason you seem to imply that the Disney audience is a trivial audience. For some reason, I believe this implication to be far from the truth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely nowhere did I say that Disney was a trivial audience. And you didn't address that it's still his personal blog, unrelated to his previous job, and the "review" amounts to two sentences. I just think it's a huge assumption to make, that because someone used to program music, that automatically makes them an authority in the field. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how to apply WP:SPS to this issue. It says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." and WP defines a subject-matter expert as "a person who has accumulated great knowledge in a particular field or topic and this level of knowledge is demonstrated by the person's degree, licensure, and/or through years of professional experience with the subject" Thus we have two elements: Is he a SME? Does he have work that has been published independently?
1. In terms of whether he is an SME, I think it is fair to say he has years of experience of giving input on whether songs air in the rotation and how heavily they should be rotated based on his professional assessment of the merits of the song. When we are evaluating whether his experience is relevant we are assessing whether years of giving input on whether and how often songs should air counts as "years of professional experience with the subject".
2. In terms of whether his work is published one could say that his opinion on whether a song should air is published by its presence in the airplay rotation, which publishes the song to the audience.
Thus a radio programmer for a national radio network does qualify as a subject matter expert on songs and based upon our own policy which should count his review as a WP:RS. The fact that his review which consists of a 2-sentence paragraph and a third sentence which describes the song as a landmark for the group does not diminish the fact that the song in question is the primary subject of the review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not been established by Wikipedia that he's an expert, that's still just your personal opinion, and neither has his work been published in the past by reliable sources. Anyway, there's no point carrying on this debate... I still do not believe that this is a reliable source, regardless of his previous work in the industry, and I do not believe that this constitutes in-depth coverage of the song. Other editors may disagree with me. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - If WP has not established him as a subject matter expert, should I go somewhere to determine whether someone who is hired to be a music programmer for a national radio network and holds the position for in excess of 6 years is an expert on songs. Would that matter be resolved at WP:RSN. I do believe such an individual is a subject matter expert on songs. The more dubious question is whether for this field airing content on radio broadcasts counts as a form of publication.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would take it to WT:ALBUM, that's usually where music sourcing questions end up since that project hosts WP:RSMUSIC. I'm personally not any more convinced than Richard is but maybe we're actually in the minority here. Never hurts to ask. QuietHere (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Just want to be clear that this debate is around a single source and is such a stretch for notability that it really signals to me just how clearly non-notable this song actually is. I can't imagine 99.9%+ of editors giving this a pass when these are the grounds we're on. QuietHere (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that a second source would give multiple independent sources. Thus we are arguing about the borderline between clearly non-notable and notable. This single source does make the difference.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Apologies we have not here hashed out whether the MSN/Looper article is or isn't a WP:RS, which may mean this is moot.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, it's not actually the song itself that is used in any of the TikToks mentioned in that article... And the point is not just the number of sources, but whther the coverage is in depth or not. Ten sources would not necessarily be enough to pass WP:NSONG if they are all trivial or passing mentions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richard3120, I see that you have edited the song. I know some songs have live performance lists. Generally, these are lists of live television show performances (late night and morning shows). Now, Lollapalooza is one of the few major music festivals that is livestreamed ([1]). Is it appropriate to mention the few music festivals that are livestreamed in live performance lists especially since there is PD content that mentions the Lollapalooza video.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This song was performed as part of the set list. All bands perform songs as part of a gig. Are you arguing that every song performed on a livestream should be considered notable? By the way, the three new sources that you have added, none of them mention the song at all. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - In all honesty, I don't know what makes a morning stage performance on the GMA or Today prominent or a late night network show performance prominent and thus don't know how they differ from a Hulu livestream performance. I think the morning stage performances include set lists, although the late night network shows may only be a song or two. I just don't know. I don't do a lot of WP:SONGS articles. What I do know is that there is PD content surrounding the Lollapalooza performance and its video.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the slang term/non song articles are background showing that in 2021 the slang term "Sheesh!" became prominent, which is relevant here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, because they don't say that the term became prominent because of the song, they say it became prominent as the result of another TikTok, which is not the same thing. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is this source a good source? It was a source with several paragraphs of specific coverage on the song providing crucial detail about the history of the song?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Always hard to say with interviews because you can never quite know which parts are written based on interview quotes and which are from independent journalistic efforts. Typically I would try to avoid relying on interviews for notability because of that gray area, but you can definitely use that information in otherwise-notable subjects. I have plenty of articles which are full of interview quotes (e.g. Two Ribbons#Background) because that's usually where you get the most details about an album's background, but they've also got other sources confirming notability such as album reviews. In this case, there is a good bit of background info that would be valuable to add, but I still don't see notability so it doesn't really matter either way. QuietHere (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't what confers notability the fact that people focus on the subject in the public domain. Teaching us about when a particular song from their set was debuted confers notability on it. They don't talk about the first time they ever debuted any of their other songs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but the GNG makes clear that we need multiple unquestionably solid sources, and you haven't presented that yet in this AfD. You've presented plenty of questionable-at-best sources but pretty much nothing acceptable without question. When an article's sources are that hazy, and there's nothing else to present a pass of NSONG or any other SNG then I don't see how that article gets kept. QuietHere (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are bending over backwards to downgrade This BTS to questionable-at-best. It is a published print magazine and has an editorial board, so we are suppose to WP:AGF. Assuming they are scraping content together via questionable journalistic efforts. Either way, the result is a source that present significant encyclopedic content: 1. the production of the song, 2. the debut of the song, 3. quantification of the reaction to the song in a manner that is easily understood, objective, and meaningful. Although upper echelon streaming levels are in the billions and not millions, the fact that we are presented with an objective number is what matters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am also having trouble with the lack of respect that the MSN.com domain is getting here. Admittedly, they don't have all their facts right about the May imitation of an August production, but that domain is suppose to get an WP:RS credit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the MSN/Looper source isn't so much about the reliability of the source, but the content. It actually only tells you two things about the song: its name, and that it was used in a dance challenge. If you read it carefully, all the stuff about 109,000 TikToks refers to the "sheesh" sound and not the "Sheesh!" song at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This source touched on an interesting subject but got the story wrong. Regarding the song versus the song, I have fleshed that out properly in the article. Nonetheless the conferred notability on the subject by their coverage regardless of whether they got the story right. P.S. I may add a bit that Sheesh! is also a meme as much as it is a dance challenge/ad lib/new slang term.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well no. If an article only mentions as much about your subject as that one does then that's a classic case of trivial mentions which means that source doesn't meet SIGCOV and so it's no good for supporting the subject's notability. So far as I can tell, the "Sheesh!" thing has been around for a while and Surfaces just decided to name a song after a popular meme to try and capitalise on that popularity. If this were an article about the catchphrase then you could include a mention of the song in an "in media" section or something to that effect, but such an article doesn't exist. Sheesh is currently just a disambiguation page that mentions this song, another song by Benee, and the phrase. But maybe a page could be made about the phrase. That might be something to look into for your next project. You've already found a decent amount of coverage about it, why not start from there? QuietHere (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article correctly mentioned the subject in a modest way and incorrectly connected it to the meme/slang term/ad lib. The article understood part of the notability of the song was its connection to the culture of the day, but did not get the story right.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are giving the article any credit for mentioning the Toyota ad campaign which turns out to be a Winter Olympics add campaign.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure about that source – it seems to ask for a lot of freelance contributions. Nevertheless, it does seem to be a published print magazine and have a editorial board, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's reliable. The problem is, at QuietHere has pointed out, is that it mostly tells you information about where the record was recorded and what equipment was used, which is useful information but doesn't contribute one jot to notability. The one statement in the whole article that might point to notability is that the song was streamed four million times in 11 days, but actually this isn't anything particularly notable, despite the hyperbole of the writer describing it as a "whopping" amount... popular chart hits easily have hundreds of millions of streams, so four million is nothing special. Richard3120 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Adele or Taylor Swift could get 4 million view of a new release within an hour of its release, but we are talking about a band that had never previously played a music festival. 4 million views is a lot of views for a first time performance by a band that had never previously played a music festival.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not playing a music festival doesn't mean they were nobodies at the time. Their big hit "Sunday Best" has gotten over 824 million streams on Spotify alone, and they have multiple other songs with more streams than what "Sheesh!" has even now (68m). That 4m isn't nearly as impressive as the writer wants you to think it is. QuietHere (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly higher levels of popularity than that, but it is not a trivial number. The true popularity is shown by its use in national ad campaigns. Does Sunday Best or any of these other more streamed songs have more national ad campaigns?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sunday Best" was used for an advert for Scott's Miracle-Gro that was shown during the 2021 Super Bowl. But there you've made another unfounded statement... "The true popularity is shown by its use in national ad campaigns." The only song by the Fall that I remember being used in an ad campaign in the UK was "Touch Sensitive", for a widely-viewed and well-remembered campaign for the Vauxhall Corsa car (General Motors). But this doesn't even feature in their top ten most streamed tracks on Spotify. So clearly simply being used in a national TV advertising campaign is not the only measure of popularity. Richard3120 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all "Sunday Best" is a bomb-ass song. So I don't want to sound like I am dissing on it. However, you showed me that "Sunday Best" dwarfed "Sheesh!" with 12x as many streams, but I don't think a Super Bowl commercial is 12x as important as a Winter Olympics commercial and you certainly aren't pointing out 12x as many national campaigns. If they ever made a music video for the song, it would get a ton of streams. Like "Sunday Best", it has a feel good vibe and if you gave people a music video with a feel good vibe, who knows how many streams the song would get. The live performance video, is pretty feel good, but a scripted and themed music video would really do big things for the band and the song.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I'm not seeing enough coverage that is significant and reliable and independent. I found this AfD via RSN and I would not consider the Bessey source significant or reliable. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if this still has not gotten over the hump now, there is not much more I can do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Whether this article gets kept or not, is a matter of policy at this point. The content currently provides a great deal of encyclopedic information to the reader. Much of that will not be WP:PRESERVEd with a redirect. I am not a music professional and do not quite understand the foundations of notability in this arena. However, I am a bit surprised that WP:NSONG would not include something like independently selected for commercial use by a multiple notable entities or enterprises. To me, this seems as notable as the final element that the list includes "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." When I compare this to other non-charting songs I have written for WP, I think used in national campaigns for Toyota and Pizza Hut, is as notable as saying covers of the song has been included on album releases by Santana and Sheryl Crow and been covered by John Mayer (Sideways (Clarence Greenwood song)). Can someone explain to me why being covered by notable artists is more important than being used in national campaigns by notable companies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure your proposal would have the desired effect. We'd see a deluge of now-notable royalty-free "songs", stock music, Muzak, YouTube tracks for content creators, etc. Cadillac licensed "Rock and Roll" at great cost because it's famous—but more often than not, marketers will pick what's cheap or free. Reliable sources tend not to cover that because there's no story there, with maybe a few exceptions. (Kevin MacLeod, maybe?) And if reliable sources don't consider something worth covering, it's a good sign that we shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, I don't know how to propose the desired change, but I think that the song is getting short changed. I don't understand what floodgate keeping an article like this would open, but not a lot of unimportant songs are on par with this song in pop culture. I am sure someone at Universal Music, could give you a half dozen significant episode sample credits for this song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. can anyone show me the proper way to cite a television show sample credit. I am getting errors.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IMHO, there's just enough here to support a specific article. Even if we strip out all of the background information on the tiktok meme and on the band's history, there's still enough to support the article as it is. I wouldn't object to merging the content to the band's article, so second best option would be a merge/redirect. If assessing consensus, the closing admin should also consider this a vote for that outcome.--Jayron 32 12:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think as Jayron32 said above, there is alone just enough coverage here to have an article. Ss112 04:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. Sources presented above, except for Banger of the Day, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SBKSPP: just to note that the current discussion at WP:RSN is leaning towards Too Good Music also not being being a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Recall that WP:NSONG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I think this would allow for an article with all passing mentions if the article could still be described as reasonably detailed as long as the sources are sufficiently reliable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (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.