Talk:Sandy Marton

copyvio?!

How could this trivial collection of factoids possibly be a copyright violation? The text, as is, could barely qualify for copyright protection in the first place, because there's nothing original in it. Perhaps the compilation of top list placements is the issue? Yet that's also a fair use derivative of *other* copyrighted documents. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been tagged as a possible copyvio as the opening line and the list is copied wholesale/ verbatim from the website linked in the copyright notice. It has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 24, and if no issues are found the text will be restored. If you've confirmed there are no copyright issues, or if you have cleaned the article of any found problems, then please go ahead and remove the tag from the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The original lead was copied verbatim to the point of including the punctuation. Would it qualify for copyright protection? That's for courts to decide. It does not however pass our own copyright policy, which is the relevant element here. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The single most basic tenet of copyright, and WP:C, is that copyright protects original works. It doesn't take more than two seconds of good-faith effort to determine that two short sentences stating trivial factoids are not an original work protected by copyright. If they were, none of this would even be possible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DONT REMOVE HIM, HE WAS VERY POPULAR WHILE SOME OF YOU GUYS WHO WORK AT WIKIPEDIA WERE NOT BORN YET,

YOU MAY SURF AND IMPROVE THIS PAGE, WHY ONLY TO RELY ON ANONIMOUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.86.11 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent popularity

Recent events outlined in the wikipedia article seem to bother some IP Editors. The artists google trends seem to have grown to 20+ times the previous proportions over the last 2 weeks . This is clearly noteworthy and I would appreciate some reverters justifying their positions. Elikoga (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This niche internet trend isn't noteworthy. Memes come and go, without any lasting or genuine real-world importance. This is a musician whose popularity peaked decades ago, google trends isn't showing that the trend had greater notability than the artist himself, but just internet searches for a popstar who lost a majority of his relevance well before the google search engine took off.184.103.63.9 (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

While individual memes aren't noteworthy, in the context of this artist, one of his songs blowing up over 30 years later is noteworthy. Similar content can be seen on Miel Pops because of the Miel Pops theme which got popular on TikTok. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

He’s gained significant popularity. Look at his Spotify plays since the video. It is relevant. BeboMega (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the viral dance video libelous?

The sentence

He has gained a recent resurgence due to a fan-made pornographic animation depicting Ankha from Animal Crossing with Camel by Camel as accompanying music. 

in the lede is potentially libelous? This piece of info was removed and re-added numerous times, we need to reach a consensus on whether or not this sentence is encyclopedic or libelous. I have removed it for now to avoid hosting libelous content about a living person on Wikipedia.(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 14:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Under US law, libel is maliciously making a false statement with the intent of harming a person's reputation. A true statement cannot be libelous.[1] I have not researched this existence of this video, but I assume it is true that the video was made, so reporting that fact is not libel under US law, regardless of whether it harms Marton's reputation or whether malice is involved. (I'd say it's also unlikely that reporting this fact damages Marton's reputation, since he was not involved in making the video.) The statement may be properly excluded from the article because of WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIAL or WP:RECENTISM, but it is by no means libelous. CodeTalker (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't find this libellous, as long as it's phrased properly. However, it's not well sourced. The main (only?) reference appears to be the Business Insider article. We can debate that publication's usefulness, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a reliable source. And when there's that few references available it's usually a warning sign. What's more, the Business Insider article doesn't say anything about "recent resurgence", "revived popularity" or anything like that. One thing the article says is there are "22,000 videos tied to the song upload", which is pretty meaningless. Apart from that all it says is that the song has been used. Someone show me an article about bumper sales, comeback gigs, topping the charts, or even legal action over copyright instead. In other words, tell me something about its relevance to Sandy Marton. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it is "libel" but it is trivial, how a song of his was used, that has no reflection on him as an artist or person. There is no reason to include it except to malign him by guilt by association. There is no reason to mention it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s not libelous if it’s fact. All it would be is factual reporting. The actual content in the video could be considered libelous if he chooses to go after the maker of the video or the published pornography site. BeboMega (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting factual info

People keep deleting the factual information about his recent popularity. This is ridiculous. It is real factual information. BeboMega (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense that it’s on there. It’s relevant info. It’s not defamatory, his music is very erotic anyways BeboMega (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeboMega: Why have you not cited any reliable sources to support your claims? Without reliable sources, the information must be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the elephant in the room...

I believe that the Ankha video is relevant and should be noted in the article.

Sure, there are many instances where an internet meme would not be noteworthy. However, seeing as the video gave Camel by Camel a massive surge in popularity after 25 years of obscurity, I'd argue that it is very much relevant here. As others have pointed out, other articles in similar situations have their respective memes noted.

Whether or not it is damaging to Marton's image (a notion that I disagree with) is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and is not censored. Wikipedia covers both the good and bad of a given topic, and as such, information should not be removed just because it would make the subject of an article look bad, or because it might otherwise offend some of its readers.

I'd also like to point out that my edit was not an attempt at vandalism, nor a mean-spirited attempt to push an agenda regarding the artist. I felt the video was relevant and tried to add information about it in a civilized, neutral manner. I even made it a point to reference reliable sources to support my claims.

If, after reading this, you still disagree about its inclusion, please let me know why. If you believe it should be included, but disagree with how I went about it, I'm willing to discuss that as well. Thank you. GBURA (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@GBURA: The issue is this: Wikipedia is not a repository of pop culture references. Now, if "Camel by Camel" had charted as a result of the video, I'd say there'd be no reason to exclude it (q.v. Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead#Death of Margaret Thatcher). But if the video is just another meme, there's no reason to include it. So the issue at hand is, how significant is the meme video to Marton's career overall? —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"People From Ibiza" was the one and only charting song that he ever wrote; the fact that it has been surpassed in plays by nearly every streaming platform where Sandy Marton's music is available (the exception being on Tidal; "Camel By Camel" sits at #2). Continue reading for hard numbers.

This is not the first instance something like this has occurred. Most recently, take a look at the success singer Kate Bush and Stranger Things featuring her song "Running Up That Hill" -- the song exploded from being unnoteworthy to becoming one of her career-defining songs at the drop of a hat. With Sandy Marton and Ankha (not even just the pornographic video) becoming synonymous as of recent, I believe these cases are more than just similar and more than just a passing fad for teens with no internet restrictions to giggle at.

Relevant media keeps artists who have fallen from the spotlight on life support. As with the Ankha meme, Stranger Things will reach its finale in time, but they both cannot take away what attention they generated and will continue to generate for those late to the wave.

As promised, hard numbers. According to Spotify's plays per song in Sandy Marton's "People From Ibiza (The Very Best - Deluxe Edition)," "Camel by Camel" (both its Singolo vocal and Mix Vocal editions) surpasses "People From Ibiza" by 1.2 million plays and 12.7 million plays, respectively. Tell me, in the Information Age and in this golden age for internet streaming, that this instance is not significant to Marton's career and most definitely did not bring attention to this sorely forgotten artist.

Further, search for it on YouTube! Add the views each and every single video containing either the song for the purpose of listening or for the purpose of the meme has, and factor the findings into the statement that this meme has not affected Marton's career overall (first six appearing videos total 23,648,457, excluding the metal cover that YouTuber "LittleVMills" created; including it, 29,411,305). This does not include the number of views, parodies and videos found on TikTok, which is a main contributor to this meme's relevance. Articles that were written at the peak of the trend (Insider and Kotaku, among others) mentioned Sandy Marton explicitly, further contributing to YouTube view counts.

Your point of "how significant is the meme video to Marton's career overall" is irrelevant given the data and, truthfully, comes off as being senselessly overbearing. Sandy Marton is not a household name (and pales in comparison to the weight of the phrase "Camel By Camel"), and GBURA has said everything that needs to be said regarding memes orbiting other artists and their effect on their Wikipedia articles. I cannot agree more in protecting pages from events that have absolutely no relevance or do not matter, but this is just not one of those cases. "Camel By Camel" might not put Sandy Marton on the Billboard Top 10, but it is irrelevant. All that matters is that he was the starting point for a very popular trend and took forty years to find out.

The Ankha video is relevant to Sandy Marton's Wikipedia page, full stop. Let it stay. Endarz (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude from this Biography of a living person, per the very perceptive comment by Liz on October 13, 2021, where she wrote I don't know if it is "libel" but it is trivial, how a song of his was used, that has no reflection on him as an artist or person. There is no reason to include it except to malign him by guilt by association. There is no reason to mention it. I agree 100%. This content is contentious and is referenced to dubious and borderline sources. The sources completely fail to establish that this animated porn video that misappropriated one if his songs had any real impact on his career and reputation. Any impact on his reputation are in utterly unreliable sources which must be excluded from his Wikipedia biography. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Cullen328 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If it's noteworthy, it should be included. We always tell new editors at the help desk that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and that applies here too, with notable but unpleasant info that happened outside of the subject's control. But the source that was added and removed, and the ones I can find with a simple google search, are only blogs or niche entertainment web sites. Unless this event gets mainstream coverage, it is still too trivial and there's no reason to add it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sandy Marton.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)