Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duck Song

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 delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Duck Song[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)

No indication of notability, only mentioned in the sources but not significantly discussed per WP:WEB. The NPR article describes it as "viral" but not as a "hit". Not everything that has a lot of YouTube views is automatically notable. ... discospinster _talk 13:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, I remember this. Delete. Largely irrelevant internet thing that doesn't appear to have garnered any coverage which establishes notability. Goddamn catchy, though. got any grapes? -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A duck walked up to an AFD / And he said to the editor at the AFD / "Hey, got any sources?" / The nom said "No, we've just got passing mentions / But it was on iTunes charts and was once called a meme / Can I get you to keep?" / The duck said, "I'll pass." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Viral-ity is not notability. This was a meme talked about by people who talk about memes, and it was praised or criticized by people who praise or criticize memes. The rest of the world didn't notice, and neither should Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Duck Song" is discussed on page 182 of the following source (1) and it is mentioned in the NPR source already included in the article, but I cannot find any additional sources for this so I agree that delete is the best option here given the lack of coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two reliable sources and 400 million views over 10 years gets this above WP:GNG requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exactly in-depth sources – the NPR source is a one-line passing mention in an article about a completely different subject and only mentions the number of YouTube views, a number which is now obsolete, and the Blick article is also very short and only mentions the year, the artist, and that it was created in Microsoft Paint [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not as in-depth as we'd like but they are reliable sources and despite the disdain expressed here for covering viral topics and memes, they are sometimes notable and the popular ones are definitely valuable to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2019 (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.