Jump to content

Talk:Haliey Welch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: I accidentally made the page on the 11th without realizing that it was not appropriate to do so given the move discussion on the Hawk tuah page, but the discussion has now been closed with strong support for an article about Welch being created.
Converted from a redirect by Jolielover (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

jolielover♥talk 09:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough and long enough. I'm seeing the definition of pump and dump is verbatim from the source, which gives concerns about other close paraphrasing potentially in the article. Please review and attempt to better paraphrase the materials.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That definition was already in the pump and dump article, so I took it out myself.--Launchballer 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

[edit]

@CFA: I stand by my additions to this article. All of the added statements are due information for this article, enabling the reader to better understand the life and work of Haliey Welch. —Alalch E. 03:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I propose merging Hawk tuah into Haliey Welch. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE #1, as the topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there is more complete context; PAGEDECIDE #2, as the topics of the person, meme, and catchphrase can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated; and WP:MERGEREASON #2 (major topical overlap), #3 (Hawk tuah is unlikely to expand), and #5 (works better in context).

The same rationale applies to Talk Tuah.—Alalch E. 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose There appear to be at least three categories of meme pages:
1. Standalone articles for memes and for its subject. See e.g.: Arrow in the knee, Netflix and chill, Chuck Norris facts, and Rickrolling.
2. Memes merged into its subject. See e.g.: Cash me outside, Leave Britney Alone!, and Dancing Matt.
3. The meme itself is the only article. See e.g.: Star Wars Kid, Chewbacca Mask Lady, Ain't Nobody Got Time for That, and Damn Daniel.
Per the December 7, 2024 merge discussion Haliey Welch transcended category 3 because she was notable for: 1) a viral internet meme; and 2) an alleged cryptocurrency scam and so there were no longer a WP:BLP1E concern.
The question is whether Hawk tuah has enough independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. I think it does - it was probably one of the most viral internet phenomena ever. Its coverage far exceeded that of anything in category 2, the closest being Cash me outside (but upon reviewing that article the coverage is much smaller than for the meme here). Lastly, Welch is notable for two events whereas Bhad Bhabie is notable for numerous reasons. I believe that a merge is due when Welch's notability far exceeds that of Hawk tuah such as Bhad Bhabie. But until that point, a merge does not appear warranted. ReidLark1n 14:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all about notability. Both Welch, the meme/phrase and ostensibly the podcast are notable, but that does not mean that three articles are the best organization of content. Notability of a topic is not a guarantee of a standandalone article on that topic. —Alalch E. 15:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think organization-wise the context, meaning, and virality of Hawk tuah would be lost in Haliey Welch's article, where it will run into WP:BLP issues, whereas an article on Haliey Welch need only briefly discuss the meme which made her famous. Why, for example, would there need to be any discussion beyond a passing mention of Tim and Dee TV in Welch's article? (as is currently the case)
We need to keep in mind that multiple consensus have already been reached that Hawk tuah should remain a standalone article. Yes, consensus can change, but I think there has been at least 3 extensive consensus discussions on why there should be a Hawk tuah article in the last 6 months. I don't see what event has happened in the 3 weeks (the last time someone tried to do this) which warrants yet another discussion. ReidLark1n 21:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, for example, would there need to be any discussion beyond a passing mention of Tim and Dee TV in Welch's article? To delinate roles of the filmers from Welch's role in creating the viral content. What they were doing is necessary context for her defining moment, i.e. what she was doing, which propelled her into fame. They were planning on using a tamer question, and she asked them to spice it up, and came up with the "hawk tuah" answer. That's a defining moment for her, and that moment and the surrounding information which enables the reader to understand the situation is necessary information in this article. This article is poor without all that detail. A smattering of additional information about them including "Dickerson and Marlow indicated they were happy for Welch but were upset for not receiving credit for Welch's fame", is completely reasonable and also circles back to Welch. When the information I've described is merged into here, there is no unique information left for the hawk tuah article, meaning it should be merged, based on the policy rationales which I've stated above. The same goes for the podcast.
You see this proposal as a renewed attempt to take down the hawk tuah article and question my judgement in starting another discussion about its status. You're wrong. Merging here means keeping and reorganizing to improve content. The event that has happened is the creation of the Hailey Welch article this December. Ever since the creation of the hawk tuah article earlier on, editors were not entirely satisfied with its scope and considered reformulating its subject into a biographical subject. Now that we have the person article, how can you not see that this is precisely the "second category of meme pages" per your own breakdown above? What you wrote is a fantastic argument for merger. —Alalch E. 11:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the Haliey Welch article need not go far in depth about Hawk tuah beyond a subsection under "Life and Career" where there are maybe three subsections: 1) Tim and Dee TV Appearance (which can have a see also link to Hawk tuah); 2) Talk Tuah; 3)$HAWK and 4) other ventures.
I think it's also important to point out that also that "Hawk tuah" is a phrase which requires a definition, like Rickrolling, Arrow in the knee, or Netflix and Chill, whereas everything else in category 2 requires no definition. So I think that's why it needs a standalone article. ReidLark1n 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic merits an article the topic merits detailed coverage, and the most noteworthy and defining part about Haliey Welch's life and career will always be hawk tuah, because that is the reason for which she became famous, so a detailed description of the meme must be included here. This article is poor without detailed hawk tuah content. A pointed lack of emphasis on something demanding emphasis makes for a bad biography. —Alalch E. 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawk Tuah girl was probably a notable page because the current page did not exist. If Hailey Welch page itself is notable, it's better to merge the meme content in the page itself as a section. 2406:7400:56:E76F:5889:3D11:B4B2:D2A1 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this page was created after overwhelming support for a page on Welch separate from the hawk tuah page (see that talk page), the meme is significant in its own right and Welch is too for being the creator of the meme, creator of a cryptocurrency coin and creator of a podcast. jolielover♥talk 13:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The meme is notable on its own. Reliable sources have covered not just the meme itself, but its continuing influence on society. Since the result of almost all similar merges is reduction of the merged content to just a paragraph or even just a sentence or two, folding it into this article would unduely diminish the meme and not give it its due weight. Merging does the opposite of improving organization. It's unjustified moving the goalposts how the earlier argument "the originator does not merit an article, only the meme does" has shifted to become "the meme does not merit an article, only the originator does". —Lowellian (reply) 14:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both merit an article, but for reasons stated in our PAG, which I pointed to in the nomination, the content of both is better when it is combined into a single article. And, in addition to those PAG (WP:PAGEDECIDE #1 and #2; and WP:MERGEREASON #2, #3, and #5), the guideline Wikipedia:Notability in particular clarifies that a topic meriting an article is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article (emphasis mine). Your worry that the coverage of hawk tuah will be diminished is unfounded. —Alalch E. 15:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haliey_Welch&oldid=1267312045"