Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler

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 merge‎ to List of viral videos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 15-second TikTok audio clip of a child singing a parodied version of a song that doesn't have an article to begin with. All relevant sources I could find are really just articles that explain Gen Alpha/Gen Z slang to parents and use this song as an example of such lingo. Regardless, even if there was an in-depth review of this song from the most credible of sources along with a Wikipedia article about the song it's parodying or its artist, I still don't think this deserves its own article because it remains in the end as simply a child singing various slang and meme phrases, but that's just my opinion. Maybe it warrants a mention in a relevant article at, but it does not have enough notability or proper coverage to warrant its own article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of viral videos per NOPAGE. This is notable, but all the coverage of the song uses it exclusively to segue into discussions about gen alpha slang, or lazy "look how other people reacted" churnalism. There isn't enough meat on the bone for a standalone article.Mach61 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've wrote it into List of viral music videos now. Mach61 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mach61. This article reads more like a joke entry than an encyclopaedia article and there's no notability here for it to be saved. Buttons0603 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wikipedia does not measure notability by level of "seriousness", and just because the topic of an article seems "absurd" or "ridiculous" does not automatically exclude it from the encyclopedia.
In Wikipedia, what matters is whether a song has had more of an impact on culture (measured by both quantity and quality of sources), and in this case, it arguably has. That impact is larger than that of the original song, maybe not enough to grant an article of its own (at least at the moment), but certainly large enough to not be scrapped altogether but at least merged into another article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that very absurd or ridiculous topics can be covered on the site, but this is a run-of-the-mill meme that does get some coverage (whether its reliable coverage or SEO spam disguised as journalism) but eventually goes no further than that. The defacto consensus for when a meme is notable enough for an article appears to be when itself gets parodied or reinterpreted in another piece of media or is spun-off into something like a brand, TV series, an actual song, etc., but that's based on my judgement looking through articles of internet memes.

I disagree that this has had an impact on culture in the same sense a newly-released song would, considering the coverage of this is exclusively "what is [x]?" mush that gets printed out for every TikTok meme or trend simply to cash in on the success or take advantage of SEO to drive traffic into their sites. It's a very common pattern that those sort of sources get used for every internet-related article on Wikipedia that inevitable gets deleted or draftified. That being said, if its notability is not enough to sustain an article but is noteworthy of being mentioned one way or another, I am not opposed to a brief section or mention within a relevant article like Mach61 made. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the New York Times is not routine. This meme meets the GNG, it's just that it makes more sense as part of a list. Mach61 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 46.162.68.151 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you wish to delete this article; this isn't a vote Mach61 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge A merge may be a good option for this song, but it definitely does not deserve its own page. There is really no encyclopedic knowledge to be had with this song, it is just a 15 second audio clip with little notability. Hungry403 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that many people want to know about, especially gen alpha teens who might want the meanings of the words to use them properly in context with friends. The article provides that information. I don’t see why it should get deleted. 141.157.217.57 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@141.157.217.57: Well, you'd normally go to a dictionary if you were looking for the definition of words, Wikipedia isn't one. I'm sure you could even find these words on Wiktionary if not Know Your Meme or a Fandom article which might go more in-depth. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can read the urban dictionary definition for it then. Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to list of viral videos per nom, WP:NOPAGE, and what Sr. Knowthing said. Though it could be argued the information in this article is somewhat encyclopedic (good snapshot of the internet both ironically and unironically for the past 365 days) and the sources are good for an article, this stuff can be summed up and put into a list pretty easily, and honestly an article like this is just inviting a new vandal each hour. Also, do note that because all of this is a meme, this discussion might be derailed by IPs trying to keep it because it's funny; not adding the notice since it hasn't happened yet, but just giving a heads up. AdoTang (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should this article be deleted, I believe it should be redirected to the list of viral music videos element talking about the song. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just that now (which is allowed, just usually proscribed) since that's the clear current consensus, and because it might reduce vandalism of this AfD. Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.