Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super straight


 * 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 ; consensus is to delete, with no prejudice to an improved form of the article existing in the future if this neologism gains traction. Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Super straight

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Several drafts of this article were recently rejected at AfC as non-notable. Sources provided span only a few days, so provide no indication of enduring notability.--Trystan (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neologism and internet phenomenon. Coverage has already subsided, so I think it's already pretty clear this doesn't have enduring notability. We don't need an article on every TikTok trend and /pol/ trolling campaign. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is numerous coverage even up to a few days ago. .  Additionally there are numerous places that link to this article.   BlackAmerican (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is "numerous coverage" or there is one Vice article? Because it looks like the latter to me. Just because we are seeing the long tail of a flash in the pan does not mean it is not a flash in the pan. As for "there are numerous places that link to this article": even if the number of links to an article was an indicator of notability, you are wrong about the incoming links. In fact, the article is an orphan: . When you don't filter the WLH search to articlespace you end up with a lot of auto-results generated by the article being listed at AfD, by the WikiProject templates, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree the article isn't an orphan and links between it and other articles can easily be created. It comes down to your perspective. Also with the article being changed in large degree it doesn't help the situation.  Additionally the changes have almost made the article seem like a hate article when the original popular term is no where near the case.  It was individuals who wanted to express their sexuality without being judged.  The collateral damage was individuals who associated it with things that it simply wasn't.  In fact the founder stated ""I created it because I was sick of being labeled with very negative terms for having a preference, something I can't control, and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance with that sort of stuff," Kyleroyce"  BlackAmerican (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not really a matter of opinion. An article is either an orphan or it isn't, based on whether or not it has incoming links from other articles in the mainspace. At the moment, super straight is an orphaned article. But like I said, an article's orphan status is really not relevant to deletion discussions (see WP:ORPHS); I was simply pointing out that your WLH link didn't prove the point I think you intended for it to.
 * The article has been changed to actually reflect the sourcing, which it did not originally do—note that an essay-like tag was added shortly after the article was created for this reason. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be reflections of your personal views on a topic, and you need to stop adding statements that do not reflect the sources you are inserting to try to mold the article to your own views (which seem to differ substantially from RS coverage). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

*Keep: Absolutely plagued with issues including the fact that text I wrote in a draft was copied here without attribution in the page history. However I do feel this deserves its own article. Plenty of coverage to work with. versacespace talk to me  23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm asking myself what are the exact criterias to be a notable neologism. And how do you define, that this term has enduring notability. Just saying... I'm for keeping, as super straight is part of the Zeitgeist. I would rather delete obviously biased references to Nazis and far right. Why do we need to categorize everything in "good" and "bad"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:5092:6200:a49e:75bd:c3a7:17c5 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEO. As for "obviously biased references", see WP:NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify - I'm inclined to think the topic reaches the level of notability (e.g., the PinkNews story and the Snopes fact check alone put this close to the GNG bar), but this article would benefit from WP:DUE vetting in the AfC process and there is no urgency for us to have an article in mainspace. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI there is also a draft at Draft:Super straight (term)‎ GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Four drafts about this topic. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep With 16 different sources, this seems to be a notable neologism. Making predictions on its endurance seems too much as a crystal ball to me. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per . The coverage has pretty much subsided and the term is already fairly well covered at /pol/#Notable_events. Right now the coverage for this term is all but a trickle and there's no evidence that this will gain enough coverage to show that it's really notable. When this was in the news the coverage was already on the lighter side and most tended to report the exact same thing as the next. I don't see where there's enduring notability enough to justify an independent article at this point in time. If more coverage comes about then this could have its own article, but it looks like a good chunk of the media chose to either not report on this or just summarize what another source wrote. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least merge into the draft and see if there is more coverage later. It currently seems live a short-lived Internet neologism, and is already declining in popularity. Twassman &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with Transphobia. This seems a bit too recent to be its own article. X-Editor (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify (more specifically, merge with existing draft) — some good discussion took place at Draft talk:Super straight (term) determining that it wasn't quite notable enough at this time and that we should wait to see if it is covered by more major news sources first. I still feel we should wait to see if it gets any more coverage, since it seems to have gone unmentioned by any media for the past week or more. If not worthy of a draft, I'll take Delete instead. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The fact that Super Straight brings out strong emotional responses shows how strong of a topic it is.  It isn't meant to be hurtful.  It is simply a chosen group wishing to promote self love of their sexuality.   It is growing despite measures to have it banned.  The article was written in a deliberate attempt as to not offense anyone.  It is an expressed sexuality along with numerous media references.  To some it is a response to the what may be considered to overbearing nature of some groups.  Just like CIS became a term, as did LatinX, I do believe that enough people subscribe to their chosen gender as being superstraight.  BlackAmerican (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BlackAmerican (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * comment It is a strong enough topic that even other articles or drafts were created to show its importance  . BlackAmerican (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No one here has argued it should be deleted because it is hurtful. We have lots of articles about hurtful topics. It should be deleted because it's not notable. As for your characterization of the term, that is not how RS describe it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many RS in the article. The problem is also many have been deleted and the original NPOV article has been dramatically changed to suit an agenda.  There was a controversy portion of the article that has been minimized and moved to the lead.  .  The article is notable, there is even an article from 2015 concerning super straight.   .  BlackAmerican (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which RS have been deleted from the article? The article has been dramatically changed, but it was to bring it in line with NPOV, not to suit an agenda. As for the controversy section, that was per WP:CRITS. Regarding your journal article, how is there a journal article on a term that was coined six years later? Just because the journal quotes someone who described themselves as "super straight" does not mean they are describing the same thing, which given the timing, they clearly aren't. That is, unless you think we need to add to the article that "super straight" actually describes men who have sex with men, because that is what the author is writing about. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The evolution of the term isn't something that I have an issue with. The same way you may see the term Negro a normal term to now as being a bad term.  You will also see the evolution of the n-word, which when used by whites can be derogatory but when used by other blacks it may not seem to be that bad.  So yes, if you see the article of Superstraight was popularized more recently but it had many times in which it was previously used.  BlackAmerican (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looks at the journal you linked will see that it is not an evolution of the term, but rather an entirely unrelated usage. That said, this is becoming somewhat tangential to the deletion discussion, so if you'd like to continue discussing the journal article I'll be happy to do so at Talk:Super straight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CIS is not an acronym. Cis is short for cisgender, to complement transgender, as in the cis-trans distinction in chemistry; you can read about the history and etymology further in the cisgender article. If you want other editors to believe you are acting in good faith, please use these terms appropriately. Funcrunch (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the differences. I am acting in good faith. I am not anti LGBT.  I am a member of a repressed group. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can be a member of an oppressed group and still act in ways that are harmful to other oppressed people. But this is getting off-topic. Funcrunch (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes someone can be. I am not.  My lack of understanding was not malicious.  I am not perfect. As previously stated, I am not anti LGBT.  BlackAmerican (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - as someone who's trans, while I think you probably created this page in good faith, I don't believe the movement itself to be in good faith at all. I live in the UK, where every celebrity's pasttime is coming out as transphobic, and where good transgender healthcare flows like treacle - way too effin' slowly - and I've seen many a TERF jump on the super straight hashtag excluding people like myself from their definitions of 'male' or 'female'. Regular straight people would just say they're not looking for trans partners; 'super straight' people like to make a point of that exclusion as a political fact, not an identity one. It's not so much defined by people's 'love' of their sexuality, so much as needing to use it as a battering ram against others, which you may not have seen yourself. Unfortunately, I can't say I've personally seen anyone identify as 'super straight' in good faith at all. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I discovered where I saw CIS as a short usage. It was in the article by Mashable. "Over the last two weeks, (mostly cis) people on social media have started openly identifying as "super straight."    BlackAmerican (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Funcrunch is just pointing out that styling it in all-caps make it look like an acronym, whereas it's usually just written in normal casing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. FWIW, that Mashable article links its first usage of cis to a definition that explains it is short for cisgender. Funcrunch (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. ReaderofthePack covered it well. As for the claim it meets GNG, WP:NOT also has to be overcome; it's not just a matter of satisfying 'more than two non-garbage media outlets put out something on it'. This is the exact sort of flash in the pan thing that we exclude per WP:NOTNEWS. All evidence so far is that the only sources that will ever exist on it are from a period of a few days in March 2021; the WP:10YT excludes it. Plus, so far it's only gotten coverage in rather small or niche outlets. The topic is also already covered at our article on /pol/ and could again be hatnoted from the unrelated song Super Straight, so nothing else is needed. Crossroads -talk- 04:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing isn't great even when considering the flash in the pan time period. Just a couple internet-focused periodicals, all discussing how the term is just a new attempt at transphobia. Seems like a pretty clear WP:NEOLOGISM problem (and WP:RECENTISM) that has little to no likelihood to stick around. Maybe it deserves inclusion on some sort of list article on terminology somewhere, but that appears to be the best it's going to get. No real notability argument seems to exist to have an article on it. Silver  seren C 04:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think our jobs isn't to judge people how they determine themselves. And while keeping it we need to make sure this article includes more clear information, starting with imagery. It shouldn't identify as "Schutzstaffel" after some 4chan memes since 4channers doing politically incorrect memes all the time. Also don't forget, Transgender term popularized after an activist named "Leslie Feinberg". I think it is a topic need further research, censoring it wouldn't help further data.Thorrul.btc (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Thorrul.btc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep As per Dimadick, it's too early to say whether this neologism is a "flash in the pan" or not. As mentioned above, Snopes and Pink News have discussed this term in detail, and it's been covered by Refinery29 and Vice (which I'd say are citeable on occasion as they generally cover pop culture and web trends reliably) and as long it's cleaned up and an eye is kept on it to make sure NPOV is kept, I don't see why this article should be deleted. pinktoebeans  (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why people cite WP:TOOSOON in cases like this. We are WP:NOTCRYSTAL; something which fails WP:NOTNEWS is not kept around because just maybe it will be more than a flash in the pan in the future. The vast majority of these things sink without a trace and this will almost certainly be one of them. Wikipedia is not to play a role in helping them stay afloat. Crossroads -talk- 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not our role to immediately create an article about every neologism that happens to pop up on Twitter. When it is still in question as to whether this is a "flash in the pan" or will take off as a topic with long-term significance, we do not keep the article on a "wait and see" basis — we do the waiting and seeing first, and if and when it does reach long-term significance, then and only then that's when we start the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, largely per Crossroads. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. The ten year test thought experiment makes it pretty clear that the issues with this article and its sourcing will only get worse over time - users above have described it as "a flash in the pan with a long tail," which seems accurate. That tail appears to be receding already based on coverage of the term, and while the term could surge back into mainstream use or discussion tomorrow or in two weeks or in three years, we can't predict the future and we definitely can't base deletion decisions on it. This article is too soon at best.  ezlev. talk 18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete too soon to tell if there will be sufficient sustained notability. Rab V (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep But change to not be biased, OR redirect to the actual page for people that are attracted to only non-trans people of the opposite sex. Even if this started as a joke term, there would still have to be an actual sexual orientation where you are attracted to people of the opposite sex, that are not trans. If every LGBTQ+ Term is accepted as a real orientation then this should be as well. In fact this probably the most common orientation. Not just throughout history but even currently. To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased and not actually concerned about the reality of it. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:282B:A964:D9BC:6F30 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try and keep AfD discussions encyclopedic; implying that "every LGBT Term" isn't a "real" orientation is a matter of opinion, not a citeable fact, nor does Wikipedia have to grant the same prominence to one article because there's a similar, ideologically opposing article as well. "In fact this [is] probably the most common orientation" is an opinion, not a fact, and "To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased" is some conspiracy theory peddlin' nonsense, wherein evidence against the conspiracy, in an Olympic feat of mental acrobatics, becomes evidence in favour of the conspiracy.
 * Anyway; I'd say Merge this article if, in a few months time, nothing further comes out about 'super straight' as an identity, at which a point we can absorb it into Transphobia, maybe. It can always be re-created as an article if it pops back up at a later time. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: IP 2603's first post on Wikipedia was 28 March 2021, with edit summary, wikipedia is liberal propaganda. Their reversion rate stands currently at 93%. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Checking reliable sources in Google books, I find this term is used (rarely), but never with the meaning given here.  Most commonly, this term is a descriptor for a hairstyle: (1 2 3 4 5) or sometimes an adjective describing someone who is highly conventional, reserved, or socially conservative (e.g., "the superstraight girls almost never show up to our parties"; "collegeage and superstraight in a Jaycee way": 6 7 8 9) or a fictional brand of corset created by Edith Wharton: (10 11), or a description for attractive teeth: (12 13); but what it *never* is used for in books, is a type of gender identity.  In scholarly journals, there is one use of superstraight that might be taken as a gender identity, but it defines a subset of homosexuality or MSM: (14). The rest of the journal articles are about  metallic alloys, math, or chiropractic. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we might consider creating it as a type of hairstyle, but since these are all trivial mentions, it doesn't pass the bar of WP:SIGCOV so cannot be created as a standalone article, so we should either delete it, or redirect it to Hairstyle. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be redirected it probably ought to go to Super Straight, which is a song. I'm pretty sure we avoid having two articles with titles that differ only in capitalization, but since this is at AfD I was leaving that particular issue for after the deletion discussion is closed, since it might be rendered moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding WP:Notability, I think not enough attention has been paid to 's comment right at the very top of this nomination, namely:
 * Exactly. According to WP:SUSTAINED: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. ... Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
 * A "brief burst of news coverage" is exactly what we have here. Not only have news coverage and comments by the chatterati subsided, but so has interest among internet users searching for information about it. Search interest began on 4 March, peaked on 9 March, and has dropped precipitously since then to almost zero. This term fails notability, because there has not been "attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, I would certainly agree with the image of the trend. The issue I have seen is that many of the hashtags have been deleted or blocked.  BlackAmerican (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not our problem, though. Even if it is the blocking of hashtags that has led to the lapse in coverage (which I doubt is actually the case), the fact remains that there has not been enduring coverage, and that is what would be needed for the article to be kept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The graph plots search queries, not coverage. Blocking a hashtag does not block what people type into search engines. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, here's my input on hashtags. They are designed for use on social media first and foremost. You can use them in an internet search but searches operate differently from social media. Twitter or TikTok blocking or removing a search term or hashtag will not impact Google search results as that's something Google has to do - and they typically don't. I search using the hashtag myself and brought up results, so Google isn't blocking or removing the term.
 * This also won't impact news coverage. It may change how a news outlet would post on a social media site, but I have a strong suspicion that the removal of the hashtag has less to do with a blanket removal of the term and more the who and how someone is using the hashtag. By this I mean that the user is using the hashtag in a way that violates the social media site's TOS. However it would not stop a news outlet from reporting on something if the outlet were to see the topic as being worthwhile to report on - meaning that they think it would result in clicks and reads. The removal, block, or ban of something is typically interesting to news outlets, so the fact that they haven't seen this as newsworthy beyond the initial flurry (and some not at all) is kind of telling.
 * The long and short of this though is that social media posts aren't usable to establish notability. Even if the hashtag wasn't getting removed or blocked at all, the presence of more posts wouldn't make something more notable on Wikipedia. The same goes for frequency of the term's use. It may make it more likely it would get covered, but it's not a guarantee of coverage. Only coverage in RS would do that. The main question here is whether this deserves its own article.
 * Moving on to that specific question, the issue at hand is whether this needs its own article or if it's already covered well enough in another article. If we look at the coverage there are three things that stand out:
 * The coverage is from a fairly short period of time.
 * Most of the coverage says the same thing, making it very likely that they just copied the basics from another outlet (a common tactic).
 * Most of the coverage is about the trolling campaigns on places (predominantly /pol/) that are trying to use the term for their own devices.
 * This is why I have argued that the coverage at the /pol/ article is where the term should be covered since that what the coverage focuses on. Yes, the coverage does mention its use as a sexual orientation term but that is more of an afterthought, a preamble to the trolling campaign. I'd go as far as to argue that if the trolling campaign was never actually launched, this term would have died in obscurity and have never gained any traction in the media at all. You're not really going to find many news articles that have substantial coverage and do not focus predominantly on the trolling campaign, in specific not enough to establish where this is independently notable at this point in time. I want to stress that this is "at this point". If more coverage comes about in the future then and only then should this be its own article. I'm just skeptical as to whether this will happen at any point in the near future given the dearth of coverage that currently exists since the initial media flurry. The majority of outlets have moved on to other topics. If independent notability is to be established then this will likely come about in the further future when academic/scholarly sources report on this. Even then there will still be a need to establish how this is independently notable of the trolling campaign or how the campaign has taken on independent notability. This isn't there yet. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I have argued that the coverage at the /pol/ article is where the term should be covered since that what the coverage focuses on. Yes, the coverage does mention its use as a sexual orientation term but that is more of an afterthought, a preamble to the trolling campaign. I'd go as far as to argue that if the trolling campaign was never actually launched, this term would have died in obscurity and have never gained any traction in the media at all. You're not really going to find many news articles that have substantial coverage and do not focus predominantly on the trolling campaign, in specific not enough to establish where this is independently notable at this point in time. I want to stress that this is "at this point". If more coverage comes about in the future then and only then should this be its own article. I'm just skeptical as to whether this will happen at any point in the near future given the dearth of coverage that currently exists since the initial media flurry. The majority of outlets have moved on to other topics. If independent notability is to be established then this will likely come about in the further future when academic/scholarly sources report on this. Even then there will still be a need to establish how this is independently notable of the trolling campaign or how the campaign has taken on independent notability. This isn't there yet. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is a notable term that has become increasingly more commonly used by people to denote (whether as self-identification or scaldingly) those who do not want to partake in sexual activities with non-cis people. There's a multitude of sources and broad media coverage of the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake, are you describing the existing sources in the page as a "multitude" and "broad media coverage", or are you saying there are a multitude of sources and broad media coverage that aren't yet being used in the article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is your comment about "increasingly more commonly used" based on your own experience, or why do you say that? Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON and this is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Let's see if it's WP:SUSTAINED in a few months... -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Striking through my previous vote and voting "delete" because the other "keep" voters are embarrassing me. WP:NEO I guess... versacespace  talk to me  04:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It has a massive media coverage.Nott Mesjing (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete/draftify. Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS but in few years I wouldn't be surprised to see academic studies mentioning this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with merge to TikTok as second choice. Sources contributing to notability that I see are, in decreasing significance: Vice, Snopes, Daily Dot, Indy100, Mashable and Dazed. Coverage started on March 9 and Indy100 was published four days ago so that's at least a fortnight. Several different publications. I don't think PinkNews is good for establishing notability but it's passable to flesh the article out with. Were this just about (e.g.) TikTok then a merge might be preferable, but it's about a trend that spans several different platforms, so I don't think a merge would be right. is right that most "keep" !voters are "embarrassing" in the sense that the closing admin must discount them or give them little weight, but this is nonetheless my independent evaluation of the article's notability. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not exactly a high quality article when "to troll leftists" is present outside of quotes. I don't consider there to be enough media attention to consider it notable, there's a clear bias in the article, it references tabloid-like sources, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. The piece is more appropriate for internet culture sites. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quick burn, low-usage Internet neologism. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. GorillaWarfare, Ser!, and Uses x took the words right out of my mouth. Plus it's not too well written to begin with. This isn't Know Your Meme, we aren't documenting everything that makes the rounds on TikTok or Twitter. AdoTang (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2021 (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.