Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Get Your Fucking Head Kicked In


 * 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 Football chant. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're Gonna Get Your Fucking Head Kicked In

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not happy about this article. Although it is (just) over the 1,500 character stub limit, and is sourced, the online ones I have looked at are just trivial passing mentions that refer to the article title once, with no further comment. It just seems to me to be an excuse to put a bit of bad language on the main page - which I can see the funny side of, but not at the expensive of maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Just because something appears to exist in lots of news sources, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'm not sure about redirecting to football chant either, as the title just doesn't seem like something anyone is going to type in, except by chance. The sole article that links to it, Daniel Bryan, mentions the phrase with no other context towards it, which strikes me as problematic as it means there isn't the source material to write anything other than it exists. Indeed, the only reason I found this article at all is because somebody "in the know" linked it as a humorous quip in another discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sort of agree with Ritchie333. It is very notable if you go to any football match pre 2000s, not as much now unless it's a derby (I mean PR pandemic!), but who is going to search for that especially as some clubs use the your getting head kicked in the morning chant without the swear word (Norwich and Ipswich from my experience!).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was "you're gonna get your tractor tyres kicked in." ? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually the main inspiration for why I wrote it (9 years ago I might add) was because of Daniel Bryan in ROH. But as for retention, I argue this fulfils WP:GNG as the offline sources discuss it in a little more detail than the online ones. Yes we might not have too many articles on individual football chants but if it is sufficiently sourced, I'm not seeing an issue (beyond the fact it is factually a threatening and sweary chant). In fact this one transcended football by being used in another country for a completely different sport/entertainment.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The C of E (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, perhaps redirect. I basically concur with Ritchie here; making an article for the DYK is a good idea if and only if you actually have the coverage to back it up. I can see C of E's point about the offline sources, but 'a little' isn't uplifting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, strengthening this to a more confident delete. This is frankly trivial, and I'm concerned about the process of getting it to GNG basically being a WP:SYNTH of as many trivial mentions as possible until they stop looking so at first glance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment (undecided) - I agree with the nominator on how this article doesn't do much for Wikipedia's quality, but the chant has been the topic of social science research and international sports media analysis. Therefore I am undecided on deletion, but allow me to suggest that the article be transformed into a report on the results of the professional commentary. Then it would not be presented as a song article, which accomplishes little more than a description of the lyrics and the hooligans who yell them. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per C of E - I think there's sufficient coverage. GiantSnowman 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly am not impressed with the sources, I don't think GNG has been met and I also feel this is highly trivial. Completely unnecessary article for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I will assume good faith with the offline sources meeting GNG and the fact that it has been used as a 'case study in psychology and sociology' sways me towards keep. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless we get some second/third eyes on the offline sources to agree with keep. The "used as a case study..." ref just includes it as one of several examples, not dwelling on this one specifically. That ref cites another source for this example (9781134812677), and from the limited Google-exerpt again seems to include it as one of several and without substantial in-depth commentary on this one in particular. So there are several refs, and they are more than just a laundry-list of many, but I don't think there is enough to make this one stand out as a WP:GNG-level example. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, even after reading the sources it fails WP:GNG  Devoke  water
 * Delete fails GNG. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the print sources are quite impressive, and the fact that the chant has been the subject of case studies in the fields of psychology and sociology validates the article further. That last point suggests (to me, anyway) that the article simply needs expansion, because the coverage would appear to be out there – eg, what sort of findings and discourse has the chant gained or encouraged in psychology and sociology ...? (Were these findings passed on to the FA, influential in crowd control, the gentrification [sort of] of English football in the 1990s?) I'm not dismissing the concerns that others have raised. But this Guardian piece describes YGGYFHKI as "once ubiquitous" on the football terraces; and the same article is a review of David Goldblatt's 2014 book The Game of Our Lives: The Meaning and Making of English Football, which would appear to cover the chant in some sort of detail (given the reviewer highlights it in his discussion of the chapter "Keeping it Real?"). Our article doesn't mention that YGGYFHKI was "once ubiquitous" – we don't even state that it was particularly commonplace at all, I believe – nor does it cite Goldblatt's book, which sounds like a high-quality source again ... So, on the assumption that expansion is possible, I'd say keep. As far as (valid) concerns about the lack of links across the encyclopedia, YGGYFHKI surely merits inclusion at Football chant. JG66 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant. This is a classic example of User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, stitching together mentions of a term into an article. However, there is content here that would add to the main article on chants. If you don't agree then You're going home in a London ambulance. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete / Merge: Yes; it's sourced. No, it's not sourced per SIGCOV. These are passing mentions, not thorough coverage; no books, chapters, articles. Even the source that one might expect to be tailor-made for this article—Russell's Aggression in the Sports World—mentions the phrase once (and even then, more as an example of a lack of physical violence). Fails GNG... depending on the closing admin.  ——  Serial  20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant where it probably deserves a mention, there is not enough significant coverage to justify an independent article.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant, it has sufficient coverage for WP:GNG so keep it but it does not deserve a separate article, so best to merge it.CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per JG66, who makes a very good case for retaining it.--Bduke (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or, at the very best, redirect to a subsection of the football chant article another editor has mentioned. I can understand a football chant like Big Jock Knew being specific to an incident as a source of extreme football rivalry between two arch-rival firms but a term which everyone knows basically means to beat the sense out of another in a pub, a source of violent frustration, or any confrontation (football or otherwise) is laughable. I literally first heard this threat in a primary school playground when I was about seven or eight and it had nothing to do with football. Maybe it has entered the lexicon through some rivalry in the 1960s or otherwise, and maybe, a brief mention in the football chant article would suffice. A specific article of a combination of words, profane and otherwise, which means what everybody knows to mean one thing... no.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant seems sensible. But surprising that it was transitioned to wrestling. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. And this detail should be preserved in the merge, if at all possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge as per several people above. I don't think this one-line chant has stand-alone notability of its own, but there's some useful content here which would fit within the more general article on football chants -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant - There are some sources, but most are brief, with many of them having no coverage beyond stating the chant was used, and many from non-reliable sources. The actual usable content from the sources is not nearly enough to justify an independent article on this specific chant, but is worth a mention at the article on the broader topic of Football chants.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable - the source linked in the lead doesn't say anything about it being a case study. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources show that this article meets GNG on its own. Merging to only one of the uses mentioned in the article is problematic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - which sources in the article are specifically about this chant and/or cover it to any sort of depth, rather than mentioning it in passing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge WP:N says that "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and that would be my choice. Nigej (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Football chant - it's quite clear that this lacks the depth of sourcing for a stand-alone topic and I don't see the point in having a stand-alone article just for the sake of having one. The main article contains information on other notable chants like "The Referee's a Wanker", which also aren't notable enough for their own article, and some of the contents of this article could be merged into those relevant sections. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:57, 25 February 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.