Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mannequin Challenge

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge[edit]

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

This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-yet-sufficiently-notable. The main purpose of this article is as a youtube/twitter-link magnet where WP editors cherry-pick examples of the topic. But instead, WP is an encyclopedia that requires notability of the topic itself via multiple independent references, and references to determine/highlight "notable examples" (to use the article's section-title). It's yet another hit'n'run job by User:NotablePeopleFan and related SPAs that seems primarily written to highlight what he feels is interesting about his school. No. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made it to CNN this morning [1] and Washington Post. [2] It was featured/reproduced on FOX Sports NFL Sunday and a number of NFL teams contributed their videos too. [3] Significant trend, even if one thinks it is odd/silly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - the University of Kentucky got the entire home arena at a basketball game to do a video. It's a thing. [4] -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Poor writing and lack of content are not criteria for article deletion, nor is lack of posted citations, and certainly other articles by an editor cannot be used as leverage to delete a discrete article. Our *policies* are that there are WP:alternatives to deletion WP:BEFORE an article may even be nominated for deletion. Like the Pet Rock, the Mannequin Challenge may be a fad, but it is a fad with enough legs that future anthropologists will appreciate having an encyclopedia article on it. Cheers!, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's all over the news and influencing professional sports teams, famous musicians and millions of young people across the country. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article states "It is considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob..." I suggest the article's content be merged with flash mob, and that both mannequin challenge and freeze mob be redirects to flash mob. Given that freeze mob doesn't even exist yet, and (based on a search for "freeze" or "frozen") flash mob only seems to include one instance which would be referred to as such (see reference: "Time Freezes in Central London"), it doesn't make sense to me for mannequin challenge to exist as a separate article. Other thoughts before I decided to recommend "Merge"... For comparison with regard to notability, I looked at ice bucket challenge and see that the initial revision only included 4 "Notable Participants", which is far less than the number of "Notable Instances" in mannequin challenge. So that's an argument for "Keep". But perhaps supporting "Delete" is the fact that, according to the article, the trend was only started 2 weeks ago. Gmporr (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about the notability of this, but given that the characteristics of the Mannequin Challenge and Flash Mob are entirely different, I would oppose a merge. By characteristics, I'm referring to the manner in which they begin. Flash mobs form suddenly, disperse suddenly. That's not what mannequin challenges do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback makes sense. I wish the article had a reference as to why it's "considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob" 'cause I do agree that they seem to have very different characteristics. So my "Merge" recommendation is based on the assumption that a mannequin challenge really is considered (by whom?) to be a type of flash/freeze mob. Gmporr (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmporr and Hammersoft: - I have removed the "flash mob" or "freeze mob" since it is not supported by any of the sources. The logic behind arguing that is should not be a separate article because it is a flash mob is odd. Now that it is removed, it should clear the path for the article to exist on its own. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuzheado: Thanks for the article update & the ping. My reasoning for the merge (prior to your removal of the flash mob reference) was that it would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if the consensus turns out to be that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Gmporr (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination says this is "unlikely to develop any further" yet we have no clue what the future holds for this trend. The nomination also indicates that being poorly written is a reason for deletion. It's not (see WP:RUBBISH). The nomination states the sources are not credible. At the time of the nomination, there were few sources. Now, there's 30. That brings us to the last point; is it notable per Wikipedia guidelines? Given there's now sources from literally dozens of reliable news outlets, WP:GNG is clearly passed. More needs to be done to improve the article, but the state of the article is not a deletion reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this passes WP:GNG.. Even Hillary Clinton led her campaign team in doing one. here, here and here. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this passes WP:GNG. It has been covered by many high quality sources such as New York Times, Time Magazine, NPR, and others. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Definitely notable. — Gestrid (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just made it to the White House. [5] Grossmisconduct (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who might wish to discredit Grossmisconduct's 'vote' because he's been here 8 years and has less than 50 edits; please keep in mind AfD isn't a vote. This link provided by Grossmisconduct from usatoday.com clearly shows the prevalence and notability of the mannequin challenge. That's what matters here. This further substantiates my earlier post that we don't know the future, and the nominator's claim that this won't develop further has been proven false. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's achieved notability given the individuals who are doing it now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -I looked it up to understand background to BBC content. [6] JeremyCarroll (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, the subject of the article as had a lot of coverage and most definitely passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep high interest topic. Coattail effect (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (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.