Deletion of Yanny or Laurel

Comment: I wouldn't say that  was a fair argument.  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:LASTING)

Comment: 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  doesn't apply. Also, notability, once established, is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)

Comment: Definitely a case of  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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-44151302/yanny-or-laurel-the-sound-dividing-the-internet 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Coverage has been nuanced and in depth, not the type of newswire bare bones coverage that  or  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:109PAPERS)

Comment: Nominator should read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DELAY)