Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote)

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 merge to Rachel Bloom. This discussion seems to have produced a rough consensus against both keeping and outright deletion with opinions on whether to merge or simply redirect being divided. In such cases my customary practice is to go with the least drastic option. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote)[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)

The subject does not pass our notability standards. Not a notable song per WP:NSONG and the video is not notable Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find some pretty high level reliable source coverage pretty easily, both in and outside of the music industry. The Vanity Fair source even makes claims that stunts such as this may have negatively affected voter turnout in the 2016 US Election. I assume this was just a failure to follow through on WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-sing-support-hillary-profanity-filled-funny-die-video-944341
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7565686/rachel-bloom-moby-funny-or-die-voting-video-hillary-clinton
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/11/celebrity-endorsements-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
https://time.com/4558336/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-and-moby-sing-youve-got-to-vote/ Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I did a before. It is easy to get attention with a profane song about Trump. I suspect whether this article is kept or deleted may also depend on your politics WP:NETRUMP like this lyric...Donald Trump is human syphilis. Sometimes WP:IAR is a good option. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. NETTRUMP (an essay) says Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. If the latest outrage has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To summarize, the subject you’ve nominated is not something Trump did, and it is covered by reliable sources. It’s the opposite of NETTRUMP. Your defense of the nom is even worse than the nom itself. It easily meets the WP:GNG with this level of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset with the nomination. I cited an essay about Trump and it was the only semi-humorous essay I could find which is tangentially relatable - we often use essays in AfDs WP:FANCRUFT etc. I do not think the article warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article was prodded when I saw it this am, so I am sure I am not alone in my determination. We determine notability in this way. Soon enough there will be a consensus so there is no need to get cross. And I did cite a policy WP:IAR. So we disagree. I will retreat from the AfD unless I am pinged. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not upset. Just pointing out all the flaws in the nomination and subsequent doubling down on its defense. You also haven’t given any valid reason to invoke IAR. The irony here is that you seem to be the only one treading on any WP:ATAs, your response to all these mainstream reliable sources feels like a mix of WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sergecross73. I think there is a sufficient coverage in sources of this particular Holy Shit. Yes, it is related to US politics and certain politicians, which only makes it more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Vanity Fair and Time: obviously reliable, independent sources, speaking about the topic directly and in detail. The rest is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: It needs a little expansion. Nonetheless, with reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something gets coverage in light of it being part of a much bigger event does not mean it itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you’re citing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for...a song...? That received dedicated reliable source coverage in and outside of the music industry? In very mainstream sources? That doesn’t make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rachel Bloom. Notable? Doubtful. WP:NOTEWORTHY? Clearly. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom. I grabbed some news sources with the intent of expanding this, but got stuck beyond the basic description present in the article now. Although there are several sources, they are all immediately focused on the 2016 election. I would expect for clear notability, there would be sustained coverage of it since. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom since that seems like the fair compromise to outright deletion. Since this doesn't seem notable enough on it's own but someone might still search for it. So, a redirect seems reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are clearly a number of sources covering this, but there has been insufficient discussion to determine whether they are substantive enough to warrant a standalone article, or whether a merge/redirect would be more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Selective merge to Rachel Bloom#Career 3rd para maybe. A line about the existence and subject of the song to that para seems reasonable. Per Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album, and I don't see this article growing beyond a stub, ever. Also, incredibly poor arguments by nominator. Failing to mention why exactly this fails notability when high quality sources exist, and then citing WP:NETRUMP and WP:IAR, for what exactly, to reinforce own bias? - hako9 (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rachel Bloom. The Vanity Fair piece gives the song a paragraph as one example of celebrity endorsements of Clinton, the rest are short 'check out this trending video on Youtube!' articles. Made big enough splash to mention in her biography but not big enough for a standalone article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rachel Bloom#Career: Changed my vote, per reasons above. Though the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG, I believe there's no way the article can be expanded. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rachel Bloom since the subject lacks the attributes for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 1 August 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.