Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanny or Laurel


 * 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. I'm going to go ahead and close this early per WP:SNOW. Many editors cited the fact that this subject has been covered in numerous reliable sources as a reason for keeping the article, and others encouraged editors to wait until more information becomes available before considering deletion on other grounds. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yanny or Laurel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ROUTINE WP:109PAPERS WP:FART Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 03:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pokémon test: "yanny or laurel" 480,000 GHits; "bulbasaur" 7,130,000 GHits Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 03:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Transformers test: "yanny or laurel" 480,000 GHits; "galvatron" 1,200,000 GHits Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 03:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination (and watch your step). -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wouldn't say that WP:ROUTINE was a fair argument. WP:LASTING is much more significant here as an argument. Now the dress saga carried on for some time. I'm tempted to review this again towards the end of the week which might give at least an initial indication of it has any staying power. It's had plenty of high level news coverage so it's already resolved that particular aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait — It will take at least a week to see if this receives coverage for a long period of time and is thus notable. There's no point in deleting now if it continues to be in the news for the next month, warranting recreation. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 11:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. The timeline in your argument is a little confusing: "one week"; "long period"; "next month". Can you make your point more clear, please? -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A month seems too long, so how about a week. Regardless, notability is not temporary. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait: This feels like The dress all over again to me, an auditory alternative to the visual one a few years ago. I'd say wait for a few weeks and let the news brew, then come back and revisit this AfD. I also have this feeling that some scientific papers would be published and public interest in science would be sparked by this. xcvista - t 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete though for some reason this is international news for the day... I don't think it's encyclopedic at all therefore I vote to DELETE.Trillfendi (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per the "Wait" reasonings above. It's a highly-covered auditory illusion similar to The dress. We should keep it until we can form a consensus on whether it's relevant enough. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, hey look - it received over 80,000 PAGEVIEWS in ONE DAY. |Yanny|Yanny_or_Laurel|Yanni_(disambiguation)|Laurel_or_yanny Data viewable here. This isn't just a minor Internet fad. This is a notable auditory illusion and viral phenomenon with extremely sufficient coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:LASTING is (deliberately, I'd imagine) not specifically clear on how long something should be active. Personally I don't think it should be that restrictive, I'd argue between 1-2 weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait: I agree with the arguments for waiting above, as this might receive notability over the next few weeks. Also, the Pokémon test might not work too well, as the sound has only been known for a few days. SemiHypercube (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Definitely a case of WP:NOTNEWS as we're not here to report internet fads. I really can't believe somebody went to the trouble of creating an article about this topic. On the other hand this article explains why different people hear different words – evidently it's due to the size, shape and auditory range of the ears – so it may be worth a paragraph or two in an appropriate article relating to hearing. Not a standalone one though. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't a pure "internet fad" when it is duplicated by major news networks globally. Whether it is something that satisfies point 2 "enduring notability of persons and events." is something that we argue is better to wait and see rather than delete and recreate. I suppose you could argue out !votes are for Keep with no prejudice against immediate resubmission. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ok it's an internet fad that got picked up by the media, but it's still an internet fad...and as yet it doesn't have enduring notability. For now let's try redirecting it to List of Internet phenomena. This is Paul (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For arguments sake you can say the exact same thing about the dress.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit like we're straying into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but in the case of "The dress" it did at least lead to increased sales of that particular item. I first became aware of this "phenomenon" yesterday, and hey presto, within twenty four hours there's an article on here, and it's up for deletion. I guess that's what you call enduring notability, eh? Would this pass the ten year test? Somehow I doubt it. I'm willing to bet we'll have forgotten the whole thing in a month's time. This is Paul (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait: I think we should wait at least a week before deleting the article. Despite it being a fad, there are arguments to keep the article; other short-lived, popular crazes such as Dancing mania are allowed their own articles. If millions of people are affected by a passing fad, does that not give it relevance? Or is it just long-lasting historical significance that determines relevance? jamgoodman (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, topic is analyzed in numerous reputable secondary sources. Pathetic nomination based on backwards notion of what is a "proper" subject for an encyclopedia is doomed to fail. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is one of the best internet sensations or memes that I have come across with in ages. I would keep it since a few prominent TV talk shows talked about it (reminded me of how Gangnam Style went viral in 2012). It's a fad that will be remembered, like the dress. Not to mention, it has a very interesting scientific and neurological perspective as well. Meganesia (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: You must look past the superficial silliness. This 1-second recording is serious, significant, and notable.  It has much to exhibit and teach about acoustics, physiology of hearing, and psychological perception.  Wikipedia would be the first place to learn of these underlying factors.  If it wasn't a meme, it would still be worth studying.  If "knowledge belongs to all of us" like Wikipedia promotes, then this is the kind of information that belongs. Richard J Kinch (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait While internet phenomena is rarely notable, the "Yanny or Laurel" has gotten some incredibly strong coverage over the last few days (including from the New York Times and a few professors). I think it would be worthwhile to relist this article so we can observe whether this coverage continues (like the dress) or if it stops. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sufficient coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the references show, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is all we require for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For some important nuance, what the rule says, in verbatim and with emphasis in the original, is that a topic is presumed to merit an article if...it meets either [WP:GNG], or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. ... This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. ... These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though it made the evening broadcast news in the U.S., it's not merely news in the first place (note the supporting science receiving wide mainstream coverage), so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Also, notability, once established, is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article that covers the scientific sound phenomenon of ambiguous sounds. Normanland (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait: As the others have said above, this is similar to the dress incident, so definitely wait a week or so and re-evaluate it then.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is significant indepth coverage in multiple reputable sources. This is not an "event", so does not need lasting significance or coverage. The coverage is not routine or cursory, but includes scholarly analysis of why this sound is ambiguous. A merge discussion can occur later, if a suitable target is found, on the talk page - but I don't think it needs merging. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait: There's no need to make a hasty decision, especially if the main criticism of the article itself is that it was created hastily! JezGrove (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage in mainstream media. —Lowellian (reply) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD1:2CC0:F451:659A:5152:BF61 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The illusion is trivia. The explanation is encyclopedic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage has been nuanced and in depth, not the type of newswire bare bones coverage that WP:ROUTINE or WP:109PAPERS was designed to describe. The fact that the recording originated on the internet doesn't make it less notable than similarly sourced phenomenon - and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that there's been significant coverage my multiple reliable secondary sources. MarginalCost (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage, and the subject goes far beyond a simple one-second soundbyte. Davey2116 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Widespread coverage and not an just an obscure Internet sensation. People of all ages and backgrounds are aware of and discussing this topic. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 01:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. There is no advantage to deleting this article. People come to Wikipedia for information, and there isn't harm in providing well-sourced, well-written articles like this one. Moncrief (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that "people come to Wikipedia for information" does not mean that Wikipedia should have all information available. Articles make it in Wikipedia because their subjects are notable and worthy of inclusion, on the basis of Wikipedia's principles, policies, and guidelines. Quoting essays is fine but we need to assess the merits of an article under AfD on the basis of Wikipedia's specific instructions about creating articles. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As the article creator, I created this article as the Yanny or Laurel case was similar to the dress illusion, in both concept and notabliliy. The article had developed much further after the announcement of the deletion discussion, especially when the U.S. President responded to this meme and when more scientists and professors attempt to explain the phenomenon.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a small pointer: The merits of the article will be judged on its own merits and pitfalls. The fact that, for better or worse, "other stuff exists" in Wikipedia is not a valid argument at all. The dress had its own journey; now it's this subject's turn. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, sanctions such as possible site ban for proposer proposing this article for deltion evidences the cultural irrelevance and shocking ignorance of popular culture by the nerds who run wikipedia. 50 years from now,people will remeber 2028 as “the year of yanny vs laurel”  may also be indicative of rapid decline of civilization and human intelligence during the Trump Era and will be useful as an srtifact for future historians interested i. Documenting the sudden collapse. Of humanity during these years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B422:3C9F:E522:4327:D341:A54D (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd be a safe bet that your unacceptable personal attack won't go unnoticed and that, on the basis of it, your opinion will. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Clearly, it's a viral meme, being replied by a various social media, especially Facebook, and various TV shows. And it even gives enough critical thought for even scientists to analyze on the viral meme. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Facebook, being a source of self-created information, is generally not acceptable as a reliable source by Wikipedia. On the other hand, when we have third-party, reliable sources reporting about  Facebook notoriety then this might render the subject notable. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems the original reasonings for deletions seems slack. It could be a case that the user-of-wanting-deletes is violating WP:WHACKAMOLE, which strongly discourages simply deleting things on the go just because of what appears to be attempting to "win" the deletion race. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the evidence that Wikipedia contributors, such as for example myself, are here because they want to win some "deletion race"? Why would you think there exists such a "race"? A lot of contributors dedicate a significant part of their time doing work on the AfD process, and this helps rid Wikipedia of unworthy articles. This is not a paper encyclopaedia but this doesn't mean we should have everything in it!
 * Plus, every English-speaking person can participate, so this means that the quality of AfD work can never be uniform, but comments such as yours are driven more by emotion than by facts on the ground. Keep calm, Laurel will come. :-) The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh Joy - we have a meme troller coming in, and a lovely degrading quality of discussion. I'd love to hear more about this race - am I just doing terribly at it with all my keeps or am I on the other side?
 * And Laurel is, of course, the correct answer Nosebagbear (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Agree with . There's no point in having a deletion discussion if we don't know the long term notability. &mdash; cnzx ( talk  &#8226;  contribs ) 12:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now -- Wikipedia includes zillions of articles about popular culture that are arguably "not encyclopedic" -- and yet are tremendously popular. I'm thinking episode summaries for TV shows. When I first heard of this yanny/laurel controversy, I Googled to find information on what it was all about, but the results were not satisfying. So I went to Wikipedia and the mystery was solved. If some time passes and nobody can remember what the big deal is, it can be deleted then. Kirkpete (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and give it a mention in List of Internet phenomena. Things "go viral" every day (often with commercial motivation); we don't need to give so much space to every single one. ... disco spinster   talk  13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh - Having briefly been swept up in this, and seeing it pop up constantly over the past few days, I considered starting an article on it, if nobody else had, as soon as there was more scientific coverage of the phenomenon, or at least something resembling sustained coverage (i.e. WP:N and/or WP:DELAY, the sad cousin everyone ignores while hanging out with its more fun sibling, WP:RAPID). I'm not surprised someone else already did, basically just after it started to spread, because that's how Wikipedia rolls these days (or maybe not just "these days"?), though I do wish people would wait to cover encyclopedic subjects rather than mirabilia and speculation about three-day-old memes. Regardless, it does also seem like there will be a case for something like sustained coverage/notability, so I can't justify !voting delete either. Covering it as part of auditory illusion for the time being seems sensible, but that article is really more like a list so it would be kind of awkward. So no strong opinion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like The dress this meme has been very widespread, and it's good to have an encyclopedic entry for it here on WP so ppl can understand its origins and influence. Girona7 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Laurel ... oh, actually (and more seriously) Wait. We don't know how this will pan out. My guess is that it will end up merged into a larger article about this phenomenon, with it as a highly prominent and notable example. But in the meantime, the dust hasn't settled yet. Orderinchaos 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is documentation of both a widely reported Internet phenomenon and an illustration of differing perceptions and how the human mind works. Raider Duck (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Currently, the auditory illusion article is just a list of illusions, each with its own article. Yanny or Laurel certainly belongs there. If at some point the auditory illusion article becomes more synthetic and systematic, perhaps the content will be merged in there, or perhaps a short version will be found there, and article will stay here. Either way, this content belongs on this page for now. --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just because something is a fad doesn't mean it is supposed to get deleted. Fads are still events that happen and gets covered by media/literature in the future. Also, the number of GHits rose to 1.88 million at the time of this message. Juxlos (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Same as the dress; picked up by literally all media outlets, and even the US president. also it's yanny  Nixinova   T   C  21:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Too prevalent to delete, and the article is well-cited.  HarryKernow  (talk to me) 21:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The shooting in Dallas, the plane crash in Havana, and the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle all appear to have purged this out of the headlines. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator should read WP:DELAY. w umbolo   ^^^  22:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -I think that this is an important page for Wikipedia because this has been a significant meme in 2018 and there have been many scientific papers on it, many haven't been cited on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattArianator  (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Worthy of inclusion based on extensive reporting in excellent sources.104.163.137.171 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 00:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Just as notable as The dress &mdash; Supuhstar * &mdash; 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, most likely Keep: There's a wealth of information out there about how it was recorded, the auditory science that explains it, and the brain interpretation of sound waves. Also, after I heard only Yanny, then only Laurel, then both (yes both), I came to Wiki to find out more. Explorium (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ROUTINE WP:109PAPERS--Srleffler (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I came here to vote delete, but the immense traffic on that page changed my mind. 130,000 in just one day. Reh  man  06:13, 19 May 2018 (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.