Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lick


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Lick

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After pruning YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, and a few self published blogs, we're left with two books -- neither of which proves that the riff is called "the lick" or that it has become a meme, thus violating WP:SYNTH. Extensive searching for variants of "jazz lick meme" only found YouTube compilations, self-published blogs, user-generated memes, and merchandise with the riff printed on it. The Lick is definitely a meme, but it doesn't seem to be one that any reliable sources have picked up on. Deprodded with a WP:SOURCESEXIST rationale. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sure, here's a source from Bass Player (magazine), a mention from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers about music memes, an analysis of how licks (including this specific one) are made from the International Society for Jazz Research , a published thesis from discussing it from Western Michigan University , had a segment on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation , and many, many more. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Edit: It's mentioned in the book Decomposition: A Music Manifesto by Andrew Durkin under the chapter "Digital Culture". Why? I Ask (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All but the Bass Player source appear to be self-published. At the very least, the YouTube video is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally none of these are self-published. Don't kid yourself. The YouTube video is literally from an official broadcast news station. Furthermore, even if they were self-published, they were all published by experts in the respective field and fit the criteria for use. (Adam Neely, one of the sources you removed of whom we have a page on, falls under this category, too.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPYT says that a YouTube video cannot be used as a source. The others are just the author rambling off on their own without any evidence of peer review. Hell, one was done by a student. Do you expect me to believe some student's paper is a reliable source?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Read what you linked closely: Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. As it was published by ABC, it inherits the reliability. And academic papers written for a post-graduate degree are vetted by the supervising professors and are generally considered reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (Someone already pointed this out to you on your talk page.) Why? I Ask (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So if some paper "reviewed" by a teacher is notable, then I guess I can insert my old essays from high school as a source now too. What ever happened to the "reliable" part of reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing a high school paper to a doctoral dissertation? Why? I Ask (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They're both papers made by a student cobbling together other people's work, and reviewed by a teacher. I fail to see how one is a reliable source when the other isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination), I'd say you are in the minority. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So what makes the two different, anyway? It's still just a student. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I was able to find it online, it's published. Furthermore, it has been subject a peer review by the scholarly community (e.g., the student's professors, among others). A high school paper is not subject to the same level of rigor and are rarely published. However, even a paper written by a high schooler can theoretically become reliable (if it was published in a reputable academic journal like the Journal of Student Research, for example). Why? I Ask (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find stuff I wrote in college in 2006 online, too. Doesn't mean it's "published". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It does; it is published. But that's just one step necessary to becoming reliable. You still need a peer review (unless, you're somehow already a reputable published expert, within reason). Why? I Ask (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The teacher graded my report in college. That's literally the same thing as a "peer review". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there are substantial differences between grading and a scholarly peer review. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ...but it's still JUST by a STUDENT. There is literally no way something written BY A STUDENT can be reputable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (for context article creator) - As Why? I Ask notes several sources that seem to me to satisfy WP:GNG. This was a creation from a number of years ago that I made, so I have not had a chance to look for sources yet. Regardless, The Lick is a well known meme amongst music circles. Although this does not establish notability this suggests to me that there are likely sources that exist for this so I am !voting keep. I will expand on this soon. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Suggests that there are likely sources". WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I will expand on this soon. I want to acknowledge that I think at this point it is notable enough. However, that may change once it comes to looking for sources. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to find any more sources to add to what has been found, however, I think that this topic is notable based on the sources provided. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source only defines the term "lick" and not "the lick" itself. The second shows the lick as existing but does not prove its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note "The Lick" as a meme is discussed in decent detail in the book Decomposition, which is listed in "Further reading". IMHO, this article would be much stronger if Durkin's info was worked into the page. (The Middleton citation, on the other hand, is just backing up a definition of a musical lick, so I don't know if I would count it as a reliable mention of the topic.)--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 21:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't access the book and tell how extensively it discusses "the lick". Even so, that's still only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the book Decomposition has enough information that with even one other RS we could justify the page, given the amount that it seems to discuss it. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Decomposition book, as well as this paper mentioned above, which seems to have been first published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Musicological Society, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation source put me over the edge in this having adequate sourcing. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I now realize that the paper linked above was actually published in a different journal, "Jazzforschung/Jazz Research, 2021, Vol. 50.", and a paper from the same research project was published in the Journal of the American Musicological Society.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A YouTube video is literally never a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.", per WP:RSPYT. What makes you feel the specific YouTube video mentioned doesn't fit this criteria? --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ...because it's a YouTube video. Nuff said. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to delete an article based on lack of reliable sourcing and you’re not even willing to engage with site-wide consensus on what constitutes a reliable source? Cerebral726 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So a YouTube video and a college paper written by some random kid are reliable sources now? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the thesis, I haven't weighed in on that. Yes, a YouTube video published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can be a Reliable source, per WP:RSPYT. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2022 (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.