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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Giga Pudding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Old silly internet-related phenomenon, poor sourcing and no notability. I think it's easy to see that none of the sources listed on the talk page are RSs. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I can't find anything to include in the article. Perhaps merge the one sentence into the manufacturer's page. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Even if it had sources its not the sort of thing which should feature in an encyclopedia, its plainly not notable Lyndaship ( talk) 07:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Significant coverage in sources cited on talk page: [1], [2], [3], [4] ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you kidding me? Those are not WP:Reliable sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

They are neither self-published, press releases nor other such primary sources. They are also clearly not as reliable as Reuters so can't be used to verify a controversial statement. This is not a controversial subject so I believe they are adequate to source an article from. Readers do look up silly stuff on Wikipedia (22 times a day for this subject) and if we can satisfy those searches with verifiable material, why not? ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

If you think those nobody blogs largely with no authors and no serious content are Reliable Sources, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Inventor Spot, WeirdAsiaNews, and Asiajin lack Wikipedia articles because they're low-tier entertainment "news" with no professional journalists, editorial boards, or any sort of integrity. 20 Minutes is okay but it's a puff entertainment piece, not news, written by an entry-level journalist. And the daily average page views of 21 per day is the lowest tier on Wikipedia. Virtually nobody is reading this, especially when compared with the 13 million daily Wikipedia readers, and the highest individual page views of about 1 million per day. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC) reply

You're welcome to your opinion and I will keep editing. That is all. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC) reply

His opinion is also supported by policy and guidelines - see WP:RS HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I am familiar with WP:RS and reviewed it as part of preparing this !vote. There is a gray area between proper journalism and self-published poop. I believe the sources I've cited fall in that area. I don't claim these are excellent sources but I do think they're adequate to build an article. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indications of notability, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it an alternative Yellow Pages. References fails the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC) reply

How is this one sentence stub promotional? Does WP:NCORP apply to products now? ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Might be an idea to sign your posts. I've struck WP:NCORP as it does not apply to products. In this instance and in my opinion, the one sentence stub is entirely promotional. There is zero attempt at describing notability. The article is therefore intended to confirm its existence and point to the company that produces it. That is promotional. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Stretched but fair point. I have added a cited description of the meme to the article. The product is not what's notable here, it's the 4chan-originated meme derived from it. ETA: Ɱ might be interested to know that new sources include 20 minutes (France) and Know Your Meme both have WP article so could be considered more reliable than others I've offered previously. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

You might want to be careful with that argument. 4chan and Reddit both have Wikipedia articles, but they're far from reliable. Primefac ( talk) 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, necessary/sufficient and all. We will each make our own call. Ɱ indicated above that lack of a WP article for a source was an issue for them. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I mentioned that in terms of news sources. Most reliable newspapers or even only-online newspapers and magazines, like 20 Minutes, have Wikipedia articles. Know Your Meme is not a news source. It is significant for itself, but is not significant or reliable for relaying information about an encyclopedic topic. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:04, 4 June 2018 (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.