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. WP:SNOW consensus is clearly against deletion. In a few months maybe we can re-assess the possibility of merging, but it’s impossible to judge for WP:SUSTAINED coverage right now. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Dabloons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 'meme' trended for one month. It has no notably whatsoever. Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. Vamanospests (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It does have an article in the TikTok fandom. Deleting this article would be fine. If everything TikTok was on here, there would be thousands of articles. ObeseParrot (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant lasting coverage, just typical nonsense from TikTok where literally anything can become a bizarrely popular trend for 3 seconds. Maybe, maybe merge into TikTok or something, but definitely not article-worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet memes? Seems to be at GNG, but I doubt it needs an article, could be a brief mention in another article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has WP:Three independent sources on it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources in exactly one month, with one of them being the “here’s some random Internet crap” site Mashable? Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable is not a great source - but it's reference #4. The other three seem totally reliable (NYT, Guardian, Verge). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article cites dedicated coverage in NYT, The Guardian and The Verge. That's enough to meet WP:GNG. I'll also add Fortune, Insider, Polygon, CBC, Standard, The Gamer, The Sun... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What a world we are living in that “Tiktok Dabloons” [sic] are covered in the got-danged New York Times. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common for noteworthy sources to throw together articles about flash-in-the-pan memes these days. Does that mean Wikipedia should become a database of jokes that trend on one social media platform for exactly a month and then die out? Are we really saying that coverage makes this meme that nobody will ever talk about again notable? If this is all it takes for a meme to get a dedicated page then guidelines for notability need to be updated. Online publications chasing clicks with SEO should not be an indicator of notability. Vamanospests (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we should make the notability guideline for memes much, MUCH stricter. Unless it’s talked about (or in extremely rare cases even used) years later, or breaks some kind of record, it doesn’t need an article. Memes are inherently ephemeral. Tiktok memes even more so because tiktok is meant for people with the attention span of a gnat. Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some other thoughts: “techie” news sources, even ones deemed reliable like Polygon or the Verge, are not relevant for determining notability on memes because it’s WP:ROUTINE coverage for them. And (this less objective criticism) NYT and Guardian are among the most respected news sources out there but they still run frivolous crap pieces to fill the metaphorical “slow news day”. Case in point. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Finally, aren’t we (okay, the keep voters) forgetting basic policies like WP:MILL and WP:SUSTAINED in the rush to turn this into a sourcing popularity contest (“it’s got 500 variably reliable sources from one week in November!”) Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. Leaving aside the elitist nonsense about “kids these days” and “memes can’t be notable” above, it is clear that this topic does not pass WP:SUSTAINED, as the coverage is only from a period of a single month. However, the level of sourcing present, including Newspapers of record like the New York Times, clearly showcases that this information is worthy of being preserved. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG, but per WP:NOTNEWS we should expect sustained coverage for an otherwise routine subject like a meme. However, because there's not much opportunity to demonstrate that sustained coverage (I wouldn't expect "retrospective" cultural coverage until at least a year later), I'd hate to delete this now. That said, I'm a little leery of the merge target; List of Internet phenomena has very few entries that don't have standalone pages. But I think that's what I would recommend anyway, unless a better merge target presents itself. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round in light of a merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. A clear failure of WP:SUSTAINED despite its widespread coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1+ support for that, since it’s obvious there’s no consensus to delete and I wasn’t particularly sure where to merge in my original comment Dronebogus (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG, it's covered by an array of reliable sources as shown by Piotrus.★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG, SUSTAINED complaints aren't relevant when sources are substantially in the last few months--really, that's a reverse-CRYSTAL complaint to presume it won't be notable in the future. Memes, I'm afraid, do have a ridiculous shelf life among all the un-cool people. The Most Interesting Man in the World is from 2006, and I still see it occasionally. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎🙃 14:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think SUSTAINED applies, it's going on three months now since this happened, if nothing has shown up in the last month, I think it's been forgotten about. Quick Google search shows the last hit of any kind was in December 2022. It's had three months to be talked about, and hasn't been in the last two months. This isn't the Dancing Baby or All Your Base memes that are still talked about 20 yrs later. Could be merged to the memes of the 2020s or something. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The New York Times assigned two reporters who wrote a 14 paragraph article. Other reliable sources gave the fad significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With no prejudice towards a future AFD. My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that while sustained coverage can be evidence of notability, a lack of sustained coverage is not necessarily evidence against notability. So close to the trend itself I don't know that I'm comfortable applying it, but I'm seeing articles from as recently as January 2023 in my search so I think it's a moot point anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per ThadeusOfNazereth. The WP:SUSTAINED question is up for debate. But for now it's better to assume that this can be improved as the coverage continues. If a year passes and this turns out to be a footnote, then an AFD or merge discussion can address the right way to cover this. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Available sourcing, including the NYT!, means that this clears WP:GNG. As usual, topics like this can always be reassessed for merging within a a couple of years with the benefit of hindsight. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.