Ligma joke : Every little meme does not need to have its own article.  Could possibly be merged and redirected to List of Internet phenomena .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Internet .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete Reference 2 is the closest to a reliable source on the subject, but is really just confirming it exists.   So I don't think there is much if any significant secondary coverage in RS.   And Wikipedia shouldn't be an archive documenting everything that ever existed on the internet.   If it were important there would be reliable secondary sources.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Passes WP:SIGCOV easily and coverage from 2018-2022 meets WP:SUSTAINED .  Much of the material in this article had previously been in the Rahul Ligma article as background information to help the WP:READER have context.   I would not have voted to split this off to its own page, but the nominator wanted that background material removed.   What might be the best presentation is to have the Rahul Ligma be a section in this page, but first this one has to survive AfD.   As page creator(s).  BBQboffin ( talk ) 01:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think it has passed little meme status and coverage is notable for some scenarios, which is usually sufficient for article status toobigtokale ( talk ) 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BBQboffin -- ( Roundish ✡ t ) 19:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To List of Internet phenomena .  WP:GNG has not been demonstrated, and the keep arguments so far amount to WP:ITSPOPULAR .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSPOPULAR is a policy about subjects which might have spread by word of mouth but for which there are no reliable sources.   When a subject like this one has WP:SIGCOV in WP:THREE reliable sources like the Daily Dot [10] , The Verge [11] , and Snopes [12] , you'll need a different rationale for deleting it.  BBQboffin ( talk ) 18:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - enough of the sources are detailed coverage of the meme itself,  or describe the meme in significant detail while covering incidents with its use (which are also covered in the article), that this easily passes WP:GNG .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see one source that is directly about the meme itself, dictionary.com, and WP:NOTDICT applies.  The rest, as you mention, are all about its use in incidents with celebrities, and notability is not inherited by simply being affiliated with a few famous people.  If we added an article for every meme that a few notable people used at one point or another, we would be well into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The dictionary.com source is a article written by a staff writer about the meme which provides history and context; it's not a crowdsourced urban dictionary entry.   As for celebrities, the Dean Miller article [13] does not mention any celebrities, but chronicles how the joke/meme became a 2021 hoax about it being a variant of Covid-19.  BBQboffin ( talk ) 00:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said it was.  And that Lead Stories article is primarily about Danny Hellman 's use of the joke rather than the joke itself, so it falls into the same category as the rest.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But Danny Hellman is no celebrity; we have him as "a freelance illustrator and cartoonist".   You said there are "only instances involving its use with celebrities", and this reference contradicts that.   Perhaps it was not yet part of the article at the time of your nomination.  BBQboffin ( talk ) 03:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Semantics.  Celebrity/famous person/notable person, all the same.  I think it's reasonably clear what I meant.  Let's not draw this out unnecessarily, we've both said our piece.  –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We disagree on what constitutes significant coverage vs. passing mentions .  As an example, the Daily Dot source about the Ninja death hoax is about that hoax, but that hoax is based on the meme and the article also describes it pretty thoroughly, or as thoroughly as you'd expect for a topic like this (a joke where the receiver is expected to ask what it means).  Narcity , Eurogamer , Lead Stories , and The Verge coverage of the Ninja hoax are all the same - articles about people being fooled by hoaxes based in this same meme.  The other Verge piece on Rahul Ligma and the Snopes debunking are both passing mentions for sure, but still demonstrate the meme's sustained cultural impact over a significant time period (at least 2018-2022), and the sources all together tell the story of a meme that's been deployed in at least five entirely separate hoaxes, counting the Jimmy Fallon death hoax in late 2022 as reported by HITC .  And besides the sources already in the article: TurboFuture has a detailed description of the meme itself written in 2023 (but the site is blacklisted, I'm not sure why); OpIndia has a detailed article about the meme written in 2022 (also blacklisted); The Sun has one that describes the meme before the hoax; Otakukart has one that only describes the meme being used on TikTok (this was written last week; I don't know about the source's reliability); and then there are sources that genuinely describe the fictional disease ( [14] , [15] , [16] ) which aren't suitable as sources but demonstrate the meme's ongoing impact, as well as being good examples of why we have higher standards for medical sources.  Even if all of these are "only instances involving its use with celebrities", they cover enough separate incidents of the same meme being used over an extended period of time to demonstrate sustained notability.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BBQboffin , Ligma is a notable part of internet culture and definitely deserves to have its own article.  In addition, all sources in the article are suitable for Wikipedia.  There is no reason for deletion.  EditorEpic ( talk ) 9:45, October 19, 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is enough signficant coverge to establish notability .  -- Mike 🗩 19:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; as much as I dislike it, there's coverage.  Stuartyeates ( talk ) 20:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Stupid, but notable.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And after Wikipedia does its $1 Billion name change [17] , articles that aren't about male genitals will be nominated for deletion, so we better save all the ones we can now!  BBQboffin ( talk ) 23:36, 25 October 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.

Discussion outcome: keep