- 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 delete. Article and its sources fail to establish real-world notability. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
What are those
- What are those ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep - it's not a WP:NEOLOGISM but a meme and has surprising coverage (Washington Post, Time, etc). Article is terribly written but it seems to have the coverage. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think the sparse coverage qualifies for GNG; the idea smacks of RECENTISM. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I would recommend that anyone who supports keeping this article clean up the citations. Currently most of the citations aren't associated with any particular fact or sentence in the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Not a major meme, but certainly seems to have some substantive references discussing it, in mainstream media. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Run of the mill Internet meme. WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Has enough coverage to make WP:N, and isn't a neologism. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. The article topic has been covered by enough reliable sources for a long enough period of time to be considered notable. Deletion by WP:NEOLOGISM only applies to "neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources." [1] [2] [3] Joshualouie711 ( talk) 14:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism, and per WP:RECENTISM. It may have WP:RS, but that just makes it a well-sourced neoligism. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (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.