Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jizz in My Pants


 * 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. BJ Talk 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jizz in My Pants

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable video from a recent television series. Not note worthy. Not that big of a deal now, if in three years It is note worthy, then make an article at that time. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Strong Keep" This article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria for "Albums, singles and songs" because it satisfies the rule that it be produced by a musician or ensemble that is considered notable. This rule is met in this case by "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" sections 6, 7, and 10.  The deletion request does not cite any Wikipedia rule that supports deletion and contains unsubstantiated personal opinions.  This deletion request is contrary to Wikipedia policy.  Bronzmajom (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "If in three years"? Is that a joke? Notability isn't defined by the "test of time". The song and video are notable now, as they've already gone viral, acquiring more than 5 million views in just a week on Youtube. It's also the first single of the Lonely Island album, and pretty much every single from every artist's album is always granted a Wikipedia article, even if the single was a complete flop and was not notable at all, such as Prison Song. The argument of notability is incredibly subjective and vague and, according to WP:N all that's needed to account for notability is sufficient reference to the subject matter in the media. Looking up "Jizz in My Pants" on Google will net you more than a fair share of links, far more than a LOT of articles still on Wikipedia (such as Chugworth), and readily argues for the notability of this topic. Whereas arguing AGAINST its notability is baseless, because there is no evidence for such a subjective claim.Sage of Ice (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Play nice. It would have been easy enough to explain that if something is now notable, it should remain so. Lawshoot! 06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - definitely notable, but it might be too early to show solid, reliable sources. e.g. eonline [] philly daily news [] ny observer [] ny press []. this video is a big deal (5.5 million views of a SNL skit in 1 week on youtube) if any specific SNL skits are worthy of their own articles, this is one of them. although i would agree that this article does need to be rewritten - especially the 'content' section, which is currently terrible. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I'll trade you- "Delete" to allow GNAA on 'pedia. By any reasonable measure, the content here is not-- ok- jizz in my pants has nothing to do with troll organizations so nevermind. I forgot what I was talking about for a second. I thing the viral thing will win out here. ok- '''Keep "jizz". Delete "The Juggernaut, Bitch!"'''. Headlikeawhole (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I don't see any particularly substantial coverage besides the E online source. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE- not every sketch from Saturday Night Live is automatically notable (let alone some video they are releasing on the web and didn't make it onto an episode). Leaving its obvious vulgarity aside, this is not a particularly well noted item nor has it been elevated to "viral" status.  It is just a somewhat amusing youtube item not an encyclopedic topic. I would agree that the three year test is not appropriate but if this is not getting much play in another forum it is not notable.  Send the youtube address to your friends instead |►  ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not censored. Luinfana (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-Has substantial news coverage and is the most viewed video on Youtube for the month of December; I can see this having legs as a popular viral video. I have a feeling people want this article deleted to "prove a point" rather than enter into any actual notability discussion. Let's look at how reception is a month or two from now before jumping the gun. Remember how you guys said Chocolate Rain would be a five minute fad? ShadowUltra (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep it! It doesn't actually violate Wikipedia's Rules. And it HAS gone Viral; 5 Million Views in 1 week is more then enough to consider it "Viral." Jeffreycat1 (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Jeffreycat — Jeffreycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, perhaps in a few months there'll be decent coverage, or perhaps it'll blow over. --fvw *  08:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable - not even screened on television. Not every video released on YouTube is notable!  Not features to convince me that this is in any way special. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was indeed screened on television - on saturday night live. that is where the video came from. it just so happens that they posted it on the internet also. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: it got over 7 million views dont be dumb gawd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.4.48 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Video is one of the more popular virals out there, and it does constitute its own internet meme. I'm still not entirely sure what the point of deleting any article on wikipedia is, but this video is indeed famous, and therefore is worthy of cataloging and referencing.  I guarantee you more people have been to this page than have been to an article about the various kinds of gourds one can grow -- how, exactly, is gourd-growing more "noteworthy" than an internet sensation?  Answer me that and you can have your argument about only famous articles being allowed through the pearly gates of Wikipedia's lofty standards.MadCasey  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.155.43 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: If the basis of this is notability, then this should meet the article. Dick in a Box has been deemed notable enough (once aired on SNL). Since this has aired on NBC and is a notable digital short, I think it should be enough to warrant a keep. But I see it as a weak keep at best. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The argument seems to boil down to whether this content is high brow enough to be considered for Wikipedia, there is no denying the notoriety, everyone who commented here must have the wiki page through searching for Jizz in My Pants, which says there is demand for it. I don't understand, did you look for information on the SNL skit and were disappointed to find out that someone had provided it?  There is nothing wrong to keeping a page for a one hit (one month perhaps) wonder, it doesn't debase any of the other articles or remove the positive impact of the information that could be gained from it. --Bibliophile18 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete Comment - I can't discern any particular notablility or reliable sources.  Grsz  11  05:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This video is huge. It is also full of people who already are on Wikipedia.  When people want to know more about this video, where do you think they'll go?  There's no need for stuck-up Wiki-trollers to decide that this doesn't meet wikipedia's illustrious standards (e.g., Grundle).  No notability?  Honestly?  Maybe this video hits a little too close to home for some of these "deleters"???  69.127.56.49 (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because Q  T C 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's notable. I added some sources.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" - it has been shown on Saturday Night Live and it is becoming a internet phenomenon 24.57.241.41
 * Strong Keep - easily passes Notable, both through internet and television notability. I'd say it should be looked at through the same lens as Dick in a Box (which ended up winning an Emmy) or Lazy Sunday, both of which had similar support/interest/coverage. Whether or not this appeals to a given person's tastes should be irrelevant to the conversation. SMSpivey (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough reliable sources to show substantial coverage and notability. Lawshoot! 06:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notable per SMSpivey. 70.79.108.245 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - As per SMSpivey and others, 7,568,792 views as I'm writing this. --153.104.114.190 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The YouTube popularity is unlike anything before it. 4 million views in 4 days and now nearly 8 million. Supertigerman (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Already seems to meet notability requirements. Its like a trifecta, with What What (In the Butt) and Dick in a Box. rootology ( C )( T ) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It may not be to everyone's tastes, but it is a notable video that has gained a substantial view count in a relatively short space of time, and has a number of different sources to back up the article. londonsista  Prod  16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 8 million views on YouTube and still no reliable sources showing its notability must really be NN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Dick in a Box has its own article with 7 million hits on YouTube - this video already has 8 million only 1 week after it went up. Give me a break. Who marked this article for deletion in the first place?71.17.170.94 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Strong Keep" - The article is useful for the cast list, and for mention of The Lonely Island. Although the data could be summarized as a bullet on the Lonely Island page (and others), the page for the similarly viral video Dick in a Box has value, so why doesn't this one? I think the main objection is the vulgar nature, which is in the mind of the beholder. --Brad Eleven (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.