Talk:We Are Charlie Kirk/Archive 1

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• We Are Charlie Kirk - SPALEXMA.wav

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn’t this belong on a meme wiki like Know Your Meme? It’s literally just a AI-generated meme song that went viral on insta reels and TikTok. What’s next, are we going to have an article for the song “What is this diddy blud doing on the calculator”, since that also went similarly viral a week or two ago? Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You make reasonable points. You could start a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

this article should be deleted as it is some song that someone asked ai to make, it isn't even a song someone made

it should be removed from wikipedia or be on the page about charlie kirk or the assassination instead of being its own article Meow3323 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to have some notability and significant coverage. That would make it able to have its own seperate article. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 03:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is pointless and has a pretty clear left-leaning bias. Personally I would just merge it to Charlie Kirk. Breter98 (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If an article which meets notability requirements has a left-wing bias--rather than just covering the consensus of available, entirely negative critical reception of its subject matter, which this does--then it would be the job of editors to change the article rather than remove it entirely. Grungeosmunge (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Please add more to the conversation if you have evidence to prove that. I'm left wing myself so I may have unintentional bias here, but every notable source I have found has mocked and panned this song, and noted the social media response that has been similar. It's not biased if the response has been universally negative. But again, please add if you find anything. This shouldn't be merged, it has enough to merit its own article (see my response on the discussion there) Everythingwii (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bias I’m not biased for or against left/right/whatever but THIS IS A MEME SONG and not one on the financial scale of skibidi toilet for example so I don’t think it should have an article as a minor meme song Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

according to Wikipedia guidelines, a subject is notable when independent reliable sources are covering it. That is all. Any other criteria is subjective. Everythingwii (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers subjects that you might personally find useless, like immediately viral memes--if notability requirements are met, which in this case they are. Grungeosmunge (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I also want to mention that, even if it is just a passing fad, the song has entered the Billboard charts, which would mean its more than "just a AI-generated meme song". It is somewhat popular, more so than the song "What is this diddy blud doing on the calculator." —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Memes get articles all the time when they become notable enough. TheXuitts (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Um, no. This song hits notability guidelines by having numerous independent, verifiable and reliable sources covering it, plus it has chart performance that boosts its nobility. I'm not sure why it being a meme makes it any less of a qualifer for an article, as several memes such as "numa numa" and "charlie bit my finger" have articles because they are notable. It's all about that. As this article/song hits all those requirements, it's fine to be on here. Everythingwii (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's a bunch of memes with Wikipedia articles so i'm not 100% against this being an article Octagon758 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

memes get turned into to articles all the time, this meme has notability i guess so yeah Yellowcalx4 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the song got banned on Spotify together with all it Remixes and covers. Yet, there are no official Sources for this occurrence on the news. I sadly was not able to find anything else online about this topic ~2025-39034-21 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

It usually takes media a minute to get wind of these events, so we may have to wait awhile before a reputable source covers the topic. Until then, we can't add anything yet or else it will conflict with WP:OR. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 22:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

When you edit, you are met with two edit notices. One for blp and one for U.S. politics. Do we really need two contentious topic banners? Is there a way to merge them so they aren't separate, or can we axe one? Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The functionality exists to merge banners on talk pages, and is used on this talk page. It isn't there for edit notices yet, but HouseBlaster says it is on their list: Template talk:Contentious topics/Archive 2#Option to have multiple topics for one template?.

It does occur to me that in the mean time we could just use one banner. The important fact is that this article falls within a contentious topic. That it falls within two contentious topics doesn't really change what is being asked of the editor. Yaris678 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone removed the {{copy edit}} tag saying that there had to be a talk page thread for the tag to be on the article. Here is the talk page thread: the article's prose was of low quality and needed to be copyedited. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

To go over simply the first paragraph:

"We Are Charlie Kirk" is an AI-generated song published by a group of music streaming service artist profiles named "Spalexma" on September 16, 2025. It is a gospel tribute to American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, founder of conservative youth organization Turning Point USA who was assassinated at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on September 10, 2025. The song was flagged as being AI-generated by various AI content detection tools. It was initially uploaded as the outro track of the album Charlie Kirk Forever Alive, one of eighteen Christian-themed albums Spalexma has so far published in 2025.

• a group of music streaming service artist profiles named "Spalexma"

This is an extremely long and borderline incomprehensible phrase. If it really requires this much explanation, and we can't just say "artist or group named Spalexma", it shouldn't be in the first sentence at all, imo. Furthernore, are the "artist profiles" named Spalexma, or is the "group" named Spalexma?

• tribute to

Flowery. Treacle.

• American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, founder of conservative youth organization Turning Point USA who was assassinated at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on September 10, 2025

Unbelievably long sentence packed with stuff that doesn't matter. "Conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, who was assaasinated in September 2025" would be fine. If it is truly necessary to do the churlish political dunk and call him "right-wing", in the lead and not in the body, then fine, but the rest of the sentence is not good. Why does it matter at all that he got shot in Utah? Is that crucial to understanding the song? If not, why is it in the second sentence of our article about it?

• The song was flagged

Passive-voice skulduggery. The song was flagged. My nose was picked. A picking event transpired to occur with respect to my nose. Also, gptzero is kind of crap and we don't consider it trustworthy for our own content, are we just citation laundering it here?

Et cetera ad nauseum. jp×g🗯️ 12:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also what on Earth is an "outro track". Does this just mean "last song"? An outro is usually, like, the part of a song where it fades out to silence at the end. This song is obviously not that. jp×g🗯️ 12:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote most of these things originally and I agree with all of your changes, except "outro track" not being a phrase (which I'm not gonna fight) and the borderline incomprehensibility of "a group of music streaming service artist profiles". The latter was my very rough attempt to figure out a neutral phrase for what Spalexma is, because calling them an "artist" or a "musician" undoubtedly takes a POV stand in the cultural debate over whether someone who doesn't produce music, but instead inserts words into a program, is actually an "artist" or a "musician". I'm thinking of just saying "an AI-generated song by Spalexma". What do you think? Grungeosmunge (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

An AI-generated song *credited to Spalexma Mikewem (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Grungeosmunge (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to that. I'm not an expert on WP style guidelines, so I don't know how to improve outside of what was already mentioned; to my amateur eyes, the article seems good enough to warrant the tag's removal. So, I'll leave it up to others. Grungeosmunge (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I hated every second of it, but I made enough changes to justify removing the tag to myself. If there’s something that really stands out, let me know, or just go ahead and change it Mikewem (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I said “presumably AI-generated” because that’s what the cited sources say. Mikewem (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not convinced that we should make a statement saying that it is AI unless we have confident and verifiable proof. I think it's best just to claim that it is presumed to be AI. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there is no conclusive way to prove that any piece of content is AI-generated. Short of something like a keystroke log matched to a browser history, etc. Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless in the situation of songs like "Find Your Rest", where it is explicitly announced to be AI by the person who created it, we should not declare it as such. This is a relatively new phenomenon, tho, so I don't think there are any WP guidelines about the topic. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 18:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have extended confirmed protected permissions so I'm gonna leave this here for someone else to edit it in.

The guy that made "We Are Charlie Kirk" is some Armenian dude called Sargis Poghosyan. If you look through some of the earlier stuff on streaming services they're credited to that name instead of "SP MUSIC PROJECT."

Do with this as you will. Phinww (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That is WP:OR unless reliable sources are given shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phinww ViVO Tunes on Instagram and TikTok is also the same entity as SPALEXMA/SP MUSIC PROJECT/Sargis Poghosyan. I have a screenshot confirming this from them, but I don't know how to make it reliable. V1bezeveryday (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a third party source? Bedivere (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is it described as a "gospel" in the intro? anyone who has ever listened to gospel and to this song knows it's not within that genre. In the body it's described and properly referenced as a power ballad. Nacaru 15:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The word “Gospel” (as in, religious texts) appears in one of the sources and in the lyrics of the song. Fixed. Mikewem (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"Gospel" generally refers to African America or rhythm and blues-style Christian music. Most news sites fail to differentiate between gospel and Christian music and just use the two interchangeably. I think it would be more appropriate to label this song's genre as Christian music. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 19:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

If a reliable source says it’s in the Christian music genre, then we can add that to the article Mikewem (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

There are variations of the We are Charlie Kirk including, a phone version Globetrotter30 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

If the song is 3:44 long, then "3½ minute song" is wrong. It should be "3¾-minute song". ~2026-30312-0 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)