Deletion of Milkshake Duck

Comment: per , , & WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDICTIONARY||WP:NOTNEO)

Comment: Most of the deletes are essentially versions of .  Rules and guidelines about Wikipedia is NOTTHIS or NOTTHAT are all very good rules of thumb that work in most cases, but they are ''not'' blanket prohibitions.  They are all trumped by the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on all topics that are well-sourced and of significant notability, and there are sufficient high-profile sources to meet that bar here.  So in this case All your base are belong to us|all your guidelines are belong to us
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Actually, it's been around for at least a year, only in June of this year did it become more commonplace. There definitely is some  concern here, I agree, but I think that an existing term that got latched onto due to recent events avoids those issues. There also may be a merge target too for this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: As creator of the article, it was notable when the article started and has only grown in prominence. WIRED has used it in prose inline https://www.wired.com/story/journalism-isnt-doxing-alt-right/ with the assumption readers understand what it means. Oxford dictionary has it (literally and figuratively) on their "radar." https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2017/06/milkshake-duck/. The argument  doesn't hold water - the article talks about the phenomenon, its origins and its longevity in popular culture. All of these things a dictionary entry would not cover, but an encyclopedia does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDICTIONARY)