Talk:Sheesh!

Did you know nomination

 * Note the ongoing AfD for this article. I would assume a non-notable subject would be ineligible for DYK, and that's how that AfD is leaning so far. QuietHere (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Commercial use
User:Theleekycauldron, Given the list of leading companies that apparently rely on iSpot.TV per this and this, iSpot is reliable for the content that is at issue. TheDrum.com seems to be a form of media with an editorial masthead (I have never seen anything with that many listed editors contested as an RS). MSN.com should be a reliable enough source to confirm that the song was in the add.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @TonyTheTiger: A list of "partners" doesn't establish to what extent, if at all, those companies care about the data iSpot produces. It does establish that iSpot has a vested financial interest in covering the advertisements of various companies (primarily by selling analytics data), which makes me even less inclined to support the notion that we should be treating it like a neutral RS. In other words, a source that has a vested financial interest in covering a topic can't establish whether or not that topic is important.
 * The MSN.com article you've linked is actually a Looper article that MSN has reprinted – Looper is marginally reliable at best.
 * Simply having a masthead isn't the only measure of reliability – The Drum looks to me to be primarily a marketing platform where you can pay to boost your content. At best, it's an advertising trade publication, so I guess I could see the content staying in with that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to conceed theDrum.com. As for iSpot.TV, WP:TV & WP:FILM articles always cite Nielsen Ratings which sells analytics, WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS use as a criteria of notability whether works have been certified, which is a form of analytics as are media sources that produce charting information, which is a form of analytics. What are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you sidestep the fact that Nielsen ratings are basically recognized as not just king analyst, but kingmaker in television analytics, there's a difference between the way Nielsen ratings are used in articles versus what's happening here: Nielsen ratings are generally best used to supplement content about the article subject, not third parties that interact with the article subject. For example, it might be used in an article about a TV episode to say how well-watched it was; that's okay, if not ideal. If you were using analytics to say that the song got, say, a hundred thousand streams on Spotify, that might be fine (depending on where you got that number from). But what iSpot is doing here isn't that; it's emphasizing the importance of a third party's usage of the song in an ad, and there's just nothing in the source or the source's reputation to suggest that that's a link the article needs to be making. It comes off as pretty promotional to use a primary and likely non-independent source to highlight the advertisements of specific companies. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I was trying to make this a WP:FAC, I think that might be a valid concern. You are objecting at the stage where we art trying to encourage editors to take an article beyond the stub stage to 1500 characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * DYK articles have to conform to WP:V, same as FA articles – I'd wager that at least 4,000 viewers are going to read this article when its DYK date comes along. That means that it's important for us to make sure the article meets some minimum standards. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the D'Amelio show ref is just to the show itself; I'm not sure that's a good enough source, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The time in the episode is just a statement that a popular show used the song. It is not a statement about notability of the appearance. This is just a section showing that the song had lots of commercial use and trying to give the reader a way to understand how the song is being used commercially.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any secondary sources showing the song's noted use in the commercial sphere?
 * theDrum.com-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a primary independent source, but okay, that'll give you most of the Pizza Hut commercial. What about the Toyota commercial and the D'Amelio show? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * People use to wildly input commercial uses as unsourced lists. I have enabled the reader to WP:V this commercial use in the D'Amelio show, by properly sourcing the primary. The notability of its use in the show is its use in the show by pop culture tastemakers/trendsetters, which is itself self evident.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S. regarding the commercial use by Toyota, I believe that the combination of the iSpot.TV and Looper are adequate sources for the type of fact at issue. Whether a Toyota commercial existed and aired is a fact that the existence of the commercial itself as a Primary is a valid proof of existence. Not much expertise is required to verify that it existed. It is like saying a baby's name, birth date and its parents' names could be verified by social media, whereas we might require a more reliable source on the baby's place of birth or whether the birth was a medical emergency, etc. The commercial had a name, birth date and parent agency. If we want more sources for stylistic nuances about the commercial a more serious set of sources might be required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Memetic and slang usage
I notice that in your edit summary reverting a recent change, you say that I "seem to be making it a mission to hatchet the article". I don't think you really addressed the point that the section contains no secondary sources linking the song to the slang, making the section a violation of WP:OR. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2021 was a time of high memetic, slang, adlib and viral tiktok usage of the term. The phrase is used in a similar manner in the song to those uses. It clearly is enlightening to the reader to understand the contemporaneous pop culture use of the terms.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The spelling of the word, and confusion of origin in the Looper article link the pop culture usage and the song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a reliable source, but The Austin Chronicle gives a passing mention. Maybe you could use that for a single-line section, but if a source doesn't directly mention the song, it should probably be considered extraneous. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That mention actually tightens up that section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * While this verstion of the article was nominated at WP:AFD, there were a lot of eyes on it. I added a lot of content in order to get it to pass at WP:AFD and what you seem intent on doing is insisting that since the borderline content that I added to get consensus approval is not top of the line content, you want to now revert the addition of the content that I added after several trips to WP:RSN, WT:SONGS, WT:ALBUMS to get guidance toward consensus approval. I am not going to pretend these are the greatest sources, but this is what we have got and what has gotten consensus approval at AFD after several trips to RSN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take a look at those RSN discussions. This one got no outside input at all, while this one turned up no consensus for the reliability of the source in question – in fact, consensus arguably leans against its usage as a selfpubbed blog. Consensus at AfD simply means that there are sources to establish notability – it has nothing to do with whether every source is considered reliable, nor what should go into the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea to remove the Banger of the Day for the reasons you state.-22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)