- 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 List of diss tracks. RL0919 ( talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
List of notable YouTube diss tracks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of notable YouTube diss tracks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List-cruft. Non-notable list with a non-neutral genre without many adequate sources. It is a Laundry List. AmericanAir88( talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to
List of notable diss tracksList of diss tracks, which badly needs better (as in, nearly any) referencesand probably a different title.But regardless, there's no reason to separate the YouTubery from everything else. Somewhat close to a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization list. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC) - Merge songs with articles to list of diss tracks as above (the ones that are actually notable). No need to separate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Since this was first posted, I've made a few changes to try to address concerns with this list, specifically with notability and with adequacy of reliable sources so far: I found a couple dozen in-depth 2ndary sources from a range of respectable media (such as NYT, Newsweek, Fox Business, The Verge, and Billboard — generally missing before!) and incorporated them concisely into the list. To do so, I reformatted the list, removing the separate "citations" column to better connect references to the information they support. There's still work to do be done on this article, but I hope this is a step in the right direction. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 08:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with List of notable diss tracks. There is no need to split YouTube diss tracks from regular ones. – DarkGlow ( talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. The reason why this page should not be merged with list of diss tracks is twofold:
- YouTube diss tracks specifically have been discussed in the news & media as their own culturally significant phenomenon—distinct from other diss tracks due to their separate artists, audiences, cultures, objectives, and amphitheater. (I believe the direly-needed changes made and 24 sources added on 6 November help make this more clear)
- The inclusion criteria for this list ought to be "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", whereas the current inclusion criteria for list of diss tracks is that each entry have its own article—a standard too high for members of this distinct category.
The first is also why I believe this cross-category is not overcategorization and exceeds the standard of encyclopedic cross-categorization.
I understand if others disagree with the second point. In that case, I believe a different alternative to "merge with list of diss tracks" would be best: instead, Merge into a new parent page YouTube diss tracks, which could provide beneficial context to the present list's cultural significance. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 06:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- For the convenience of this AFD, could you provide here the two or three best sources that you believe indicate "Youtube diss tracks" are a separate and distinct topic area from "diss tracks" in general? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Elaborating on the above, what we would need are sources not just about individual YouTube diss tracks but a bunch of sources which make a clear case that a YouTube diss track is distinct from a diss track beyond just the medium/platform. For me, I'd want to see a main topic along the lines of YouTube diss track, and I strongly suspect there aren't sufficient sources to sustain such a page (as opposed to, say, a sub-section of the main article).
- We also wouldn't apply the "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" standard for a list of examples like this. Those are extremely uncommon as stand-alone lists, and would never take the form of examples of a particular genre. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: @Squeamish Ossifrage—here are a few sources that lead me to believe "YouTube diss tracks" are notable as a category unto themselves, and different than diss tracks in general!
- Alexander, Julia, " | YouTube creators reinvented diss tracks to make millions" (21 August 2018), Polygon.
- Mak, Aaron, " | The Dark Allegations Behind Some of YouTube’s Most Popular Music Videos" (7 March 2018), Slate.
- Lorenz, Taylor, " | The Recording Artist Who Went Platinum for His Diss Tracks on Jake Paul" (14 May 2018), The Daily Beast.
- Cirisano, Tatiana, " | How a YouTuber War Launched a Jake Paul Diss Track Onto the Hot 100" (1 September 2017), Billboard. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate your responsiveness. I'll note first off that 3/4 of those links are currently dead due to site restructuring at their respective publishers, but the articles are all still easily available. In any case, I think your sources clearly demonstrate that this is an important phenomenon ... but not one that's wholly distinct from the parent concept (of diss track in general). Indeed, the Polygon article explicitly states that this is a continuation of the rap culture element in a new format. Several of the sources make it clear that this is a multimedia topic, with YouTube videos fueling visibility for songs that did not necessarily debut there. Also, from a project standpoint, diss track is a short, poorly developed article. If that weren't the case, there might be cause to split this up per WP:SPINOUT, but there's really not; neither is List of diss tracks so long that it cannot absorb well-documented YouTube examples. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed the link formatting! My mistake! Here are a few thoughts on important points you shared (thank you!):
- Re: Multimedia — In all of these cases, the songs debuted on YouTube, and my understanding is that their popularity off-platform (eg. songs with Billboard certification) is a secondary result of the first-order popularity of the YouTube music videos themselves.
- Re: parent concept — I hear you that these represent a continuation of the rap concept discussed in the broader diss tracks article.
- Re: diss (music) is an underdeveloped-developed article — I agree. I don't know, myself, where to find the high quality references needed to build out its missing sections, unfortunately, or I would!
- Re: List of diss tracks is not so long that it couldn't absorb well-documented YouTube examples — I'm a little worried because editors have (even in that article's very short lifetime) removed even some of the most notable YouTube examples like "It's Every Night Sis" (platinum certified, many articles), or "The Fall of Jake Paul" (340M views, many articles). One comment left with that type of revision was "The list should only be comprised diss tracks that form from genuine beef or animosity. Youtubers that make diss tracks simply for content should not be included in the list." But perhaps, if the result of this discussion is "Merge," this could be addressed with a note on the talk page of that article? Small concern that a note on the talk page might not fully address the attitude of editors who view "regular" diss tracks as distinct from (and, probably, often superior or more legitimate/than) YouTube diss tracks. These songs not having their own pages suggests they may not be notable enough for Wikipedia right now, but I think we've established that the category is important enough for Wikipedia(?) I don't know how balance these important needs!
- Thank you all so much for your perspectives! — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It's unfortunately missing the epic diss track of Mathologer targeting Numberphile about the infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to List of diss tracks. There is no need for a second list just for Youtube videos and also we don't use notable in article titles. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 12:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 List of diss tracks. RL0919 ( talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
List of notable YouTube diss tracks
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of notable YouTube diss tracks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List-cruft. Non-notable list with a non-neutral genre without many adequate sources. It is a Laundry List. AmericanAir88( talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to
List of notable diss tracksList of diss tracks, which badly needs better (as in, nearly any) referencesand probably a different title.But regardless, there's no reason to separate the YouTubery from everything else. Somewhat close to a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization list. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC) - Merge songs with articles to list of diss tracks as above (the ones that are actually notable). No need to separate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Since this was first posted, I've made a few changes to try to address concerns with this list, specifically with notability and with adequacy of reliable sources so far: I found a couple dozen in-depth 2ndary sources from a range of respectable media (such as NYT, Newsweek, Fox Business, The Verge, and Billboard — generally missing before!) and incorporated them concisely into the list. To do so, I reformatted the list, removing the separate "citations" column to better connect references to the information they support. There's still work to do be done on this article, but I hope this is a step in the right direction. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 08:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with List of notable diss tracks. There is no need to split YouTube diss tracks from regular ones. – DarkGlow ( talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. The reason why this page should not be merged with list of diss tracks is twofold:
- YouTube diss tracks specifically have been discussed in the news & media as their own culturally significant phenomenon—distinct from other diss tracks due to their separate artists, audiences, cultures, objectives, and amphitheater. (I believe the direly-needed changes made and 24 sources added on 6 November help make this more clear)
- The inclusion criteria for this list ought to be "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", whereas the current inclusion criteria for list of diss tracks is that each entry have its own article—a standard too high for members of this distinct category.
The first is also why I believe this cross-category is not overcategorization and exceeds the standard of encyclopedic cross-categorization.
I understand if others disagree with the second point. In that case, I believe a different alternative to "merge with list of diss tracks" would be best: instead, Merge into a new parent page YouTube diss tracks, which could provide beneficial context to the present list's cultural significance. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 06:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- For the convenience of this AFD, could you provide here the two or three best sources that you believe indicate "Youtube diss tracks" are a separate and distinct topic area from "diss tracks" in general? Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Elaborating on the above, what we would need are sources not just about individual YouTube diss tracks but a bunch of sources which make a clear case that a YouTube diss track is distinct from a diss track beyond just the medium/platform. For me, I'd want to see a main topic along the lines of YouTube diss track, and I strongly suspect there aren't sufficient sources to sustain such a page (as opposed to, say, a sub-section of the main article).
- We also wouldn't apply the "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" standard for a list of examples like this. Those are extremely uncommon as stand-alone lists, and would never take the form of examples of a particular genre. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: @Squeamish Ossifrage—here are a few sources that lead me to believe "YouTube diss tracks" are notable as a category unto themselves, and different than diss tracks in general!
- Alexander, Julia, " | YouTube creators reinvented diss tracks to make millions" (21 August 2018), Polygon.
- Mak, Aaron, " | The Dark Allegations Behind Some of YouTube’s Most Popular Music Videos" (7 March 2018), Slate.
- Lorenz, Taylor, " | The Recording Artist Who Went Platinum for His Diss Tracks on Jake Paul" (14 May 2018), The Daily Beast.
- Cirisano, Tatiana, " | How a YouTuber War Launched a Jake Paul Diss Track Onto the Hot 100" (1 September 2017), Billboard. — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate your responsiveness. I'll note first off that 3/4 of those links are currently dead due to site restructuring at their respective publishers, but the articles are all still easily available. In any case, I think your sources clearly demonstrate that this is an important phenomenon ... but not one that's wholly distinct from the parent concept (of diss track in general). Indeed, the Polygon article explicitly states that this is a continuation of the rap culture element in a new format. Several of the sources make it clear that this is a multimedia topic, with YouTube videos fueling visibility for songs that did not necessarily debut there. Also, from a project standpoint, diss track is a short, poorly developed article. If that weren't the case, there might be cause to split this up per WP:SPINOUT, but there's really not; neither is List of diss tracks so long that it cannot absorb well-documented YouTube examples. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed the link formatting! My mistake! Here are a few thoughts on important points you shared (thank you!):
- Re: Multimedia — In all of these cases, the songs debuted on YouTube, and my understanding is that their popularity off-platform (eg. songs with Billboard certification) is a secondary result of the first-order popularity of the YouTube music videos themselves.
- Re: parent concept — I hear you that these represent a continuation of the rap concept discussed in the broader diss tracks article.
- Re: diss (music) is an underdeveloped-developed article — I agree. I don't know, myself, where to find the high quality references needed to build out its missing sections, unfortunately, or I would!
- Re: List of diss tracks is not so long that it couldn't absorb well-documented YouTube examples — I'm a little worried because editors have (even in that article's very short lifetime) removed even some of the most notable YouTube examples like "It's Every Night Sis" (platinum certified, many articles), or "The Fall of Jake Paul" (340M views, many articles). One comment left with that type of revision was "The list should only be comprised diss tracks that form from genuine beef or animosity. Youtubers that make diss tracks simply for content should not be included in the list." But perhaps, if the result of this discussion is "Merge," this could be addressed with a note on the talk page of that article? Small concern that a note on the talk page might not fully address the attitude of editors who view "regular" diss tracks as distinct from (and, probably, often superior or more legitimate/than) YouTube diss tracks. These songs not having their own pages suggests they may not be notable enough for Wikipedia right now, but I think we've established that the category is important enough for Wikipedia(?) I don't know how balance these important needs!
- Thank you all so much for your perspectives! — Shrinkydinks ( talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It's unfortunately missing the epic diss track of Mathologer targeting Numberphile about the infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to List of diss tracks. There is no need for a second list just for Youtube videos and also we don't use notable in article titles. Ajf773 ( talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 12:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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.