Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyat

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 see a consensus to Keep. Those who argued for a Merge made a good argument but there are disputes about which generation article this article might be appropriately Merged to which raises enough uncertainty that I'm closing this as Keep since editors seem to believe that the sources for this article are more than adequate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyat[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NOPAGE in my view, and should be redirected to the entry at List of Generation Z slang. Seemingly all reliable sources documenting this word do so in the context of providing brief explanations of what the word is (presumably for an audience of confused parents of Gen Alpha children), and lack substantial cultural or etymological analysis, making expansion prospects for the article dim. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above, and also arguably as per WP:NOTDICT ArkHyena (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT doesn't really apply here, since the article does considerably more than just define the term, as do reliable sources on the topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My first instinct is to agree with everything written above (and to add that as Wikitionary already has an entry for this term, a redirect to List of Generation Z slang really won't result in any loss of useful information), however, I would like to better understand where we draw the line: What, for instance, is the merit of an article like Rizz as compared to Gyat? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you @Cl3phact0 the line is fuzzy so I have dropped a note at WikiProject Linguistics. I am leaning keep in part because the Today article includes a few experts who did provide background into its origins and evolution. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WORDISSUBJECT. In short, if reliable sources that discuss the word as a word satisfy notability and verifiability criteria, an article may be warranted. Note that the sources should discuss the word in a way that goes beyond definition, usage, etc., often by describing its social or historical significance. Cnilep (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not top-shelf RS, but we have The Sun, the New York Post, et. al. writing about this word (well beyond matter-of-fact "definition, usage, etc."). It might actually be worth slow-walking this, ehem, gyat thing to see how much more SIGCOV it amasses. (If, eventually, it's kept, the article needs to include [more] information on the social or historical significance of the term, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0 Well, that's why I linked WP:NOPAGE instead of WP:NOTDICT. I agree that there should be a home for this information to exist on WP, I just think that home is List of Generation Z slang. Mach61 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. ~~I suppose a redirect (and merge of anything worth keeping on hand) would do the trick then.~~ It can always be reversed easily enough in future – say, when "Gyat(t)" is named "word of the year" by some august and hoary institution. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Gyat is never named "word of the year." TLA^tlak 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share your sentiment. That said, I am starting to lean more towards "keep". The arguments being made here for the article's retention are solid. It does appear to meet both WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:SIGCOV. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it got too close for comfort. TLA^tlak 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That List of Generation Z slang is fascinating, if not a tad disorienting. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because rizz was Oxford's word of the year? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seemed like a good illustration of an article that would easily be over the line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm the author, I get that WP:NOTDICT is a thing, but Gyat has substantial cultural influence. Apart. from a ton of coverage in tabloids / WP:MREL sources, this article in Today] is likely one of the strongest in supporting substantial cultural or etymological analysis. As S0091 mentioned on my talk page. Probably more needs to be added to the article itself, but the aforementioned substance of Gyat clearly can't be summarized at Wiktionary. WP:WORDISSUBJECT. TLA^tlak 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was originally leaning the other way, but after examining the sources, it does seem like this word clearly meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, and the article as written is more than just a WP:DICTDEF, as others have pointed out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added to the List of Gen Z slang. HiSisters98 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a consensus here and a broader discussion on when terms should have stand-alone articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG. The Today, HITC and Dexerto articles are about Gyat specifically (the latter is not used in this article but in List of Generation Z slang, though the word is attributed to Gen Alpha). Other articles such as NYT and RollingStone also support it's social and cultural significance. S0091 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG and the term is everywhere right now… I see no reason for the deletion. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, I'm not challenging the notability of the word, I simply think the information currently in the article could be summarized in List of Generation Z slang Mach61 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At its current state, Gyat might be able to be summarized there, but I suspect that if the social and culture significance added the story would change. List of Generation Z slang doesn't seem right, as Gyat is used a bit more predominantly by Generation Alpha, both according to the sources and according to Generation Z (me as well). Once List of Generation Alpha slang (likely in the near future) is published, what would we do? TLA^tlak 08:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time and the inclination to do so, why not just add additional information re: the "social and culture significance" of the word? Put it irrefutably over the WP:WORDISSUBJECT line. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0 thanks for the idea. I've done that with some major expansion. TLA^tlak 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea. :) Seriously, good job. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! TLA^tlak 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61, would these changes change your opinion? sorry for ping TLA^tlak 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now surpasses most of the criteria discussed above and is supported by sufficient sources. In my view, it is also interesting information and a useful addition. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: due to SIGCOV with plenty of reliable sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it in List of Generation Z slang, with a few of the best sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Generation Z slang (which isn’t technically accurate as it’s African-American Vernacular slang but it’s better here to merge into the aforementioned article). For one, the word is not notable on its own to have a Wikipedia article and two, the description in the article isn’t an accurate account of the word. A blurb in Generation Z slang serves it best. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of the word are disputed. GP22248 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it also probably isn't technically accurate as it's used by Generation Alpha more. TLA^tlak 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. I see it's more widely used by Generation Alpha. Pancho507 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s used by both about equally, however, since the origins of the words are disputed, it wouldn’t be accurate to put it in either. GP22248 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge camps. This is just an impression but I think there are some editors who are focusing on the meaning of the word and not on whether there is adequate sourcing to establish notability which should be the primary determinant of whether or not there is a standalone article, not on the nature of the term. At this point, it's either a No consensus closure or one more relist and I'm going with the latter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would note to all those voting merge to List of Generation Z slang that doing so would be factually somewhat incorrect, as the term is more predominantly used by Generation Alpha, based on sourcing online and if you have ever spent time on TikTok: NYT, BI, Daily Caller, et al. TLA^tlak 14:37, 28 March 2024 (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.