Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination)

Skibidi Toilet

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The last nomination for this article was not descriptive and the nominator failed to demonstrate a lack of notability. In the time since this article has been put into mainspace, there has been no indication that Skibidi Toilet is notable despite receiving coverage from sources that are ambiguous in reliability. Sources such as Lifehacker and Distractify may be acceptable for expanding on an article that has already been deemed notable, but the only sources that seem to bear weight are For The Win—a publication that is likely not held to the same standards as its parent USA Today—and Kotaku.

Game Rant — Source associated with Valnet, a dubious publishing company. See WikiProject Video games' assessment of Valnet and this discussion.
Cartoon Brew — Reliability unclear.
Lifehacker — Reliability unclear. See this discussion.
Newsweek — Associated with IBT Media and journalistic decline since 2013. See WP:NEWSWEEK.
Distractify — No consensus. See this discussion.
The Daily Dot — No consensus. See WP:DAILYDOT.
Dexerto — Unreliable. See WikiProject Video games' assessments. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of these sources you list other than the reliable ones such the ones on Yahoo News have no consensus. That doesn't mean we should delete the article for that reason. Aside from sources, the subject is absolutely notable as noted on previous consensus, such as the YouTube channel having 11 billion views and 30 million subscribers. Note that nominator has previously nominated articles which obviously meet WP:GNG such as Linus Sebastian. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basing an article on ambiguous sources is reckless. Well-established sources determine notability, not marginally reliable or dubious ones. YouTube views and subscribers are irrelevant here, as are my previous deletion requests. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ....

etc. etc.

Nominator, your preliminary check does not seem to have been really thorough, so would you consider withdrawing? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wisen up before resorting to personal attacks before you get more than you bargained for. I covered a selection of sources, including Newsweek. The additional sources you have found are neither reliable nor unreliable and cannot be used to assess notability. The question is not if there are sources for this topic but if they can determine notability. If The New York Times and The Washington Post were to have full articles on Skibidi Toilet, this article would be justifiably acceptable for mainspace. Sources that have not been put up to scrutiny may be reliable. The use of unheard of sources is a signal that editors are scraping the bottom of an empty barrel. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks"? "Wisen up"? "Before you get more than what you bargained for"?!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you sure this is the appropriate reply to my comment?... yes you did mention Newsweek in general above in your selection of sources. But if you haven't heard of the other newspapers or websites mentioned above, well, look them up, maybe. No furrher comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the due diligence but I cannot assess whether they're suitable here. The other sources you mention are not present at WP:RSP. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of the Newsweek article came from the Daily Mail, which we all know is not really of the greatest reliability. Newsweek sources after 2013 aren't reliable either. I suggest you actually check the reliability of the sources you use before you use them. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Boston Globe is an editorial cartoon, the USA Today article is a question and answer segment about the meme, nothing extensive. There is no decent sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The La Gaceta is about the best sourcing there is, rest are not useable, trivial coverage of this thing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
......Have you opened the Dazed and Comercio articles by any chance? Not extensive, how? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one is a question and answer segment. Second is a half-pager with more space for photos than text. I'd give the question and answer maybe a quarter RS validity, the other one is small, so like half a source. (Meaning if I took the time to make a source table, you'd get trivial coverage for both of them, which help notability, but alone aren't enough). Together we might be able to combine them as counting for one decent source, with the yahoo news feature, it's almost at notability. I'd still like to see one more strong source before changing the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak keep Business Insider published an article [1], which is fine. That's enough sources. Side note: What the heck is this thing and why? I feel like "old man yelling at cloud" from the Simpsons... Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought adding anything was necessary, especially as the last Afd had already established notability and not so long ago (!), but here we go:

And there is an article in ABC quoted in the page, not to mention other sources that are acceptable.

Do we really need more?

Sure....:

...............-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thiswastv source doesn't seem reliable at all, it just looks like a tabloid, and the author is known for making opinion pieces.

The writer from the passionfru.it source came from KnowYourMeme, which is an unreliable source.

The L'adn, Watson and Indy100 sources also seem unreliable, with Indy100 inventing a new term that has never been used by anyone else.

The Stealthoptional article is in the "Reviews" category.

Filmdaily.co and Tiny Beans should immediately be excluded since they're literally just opinion.

So basically the only source you gave that seems reliable is the HITC source. And even then you said that the last AfD established notability, which is not true because the last AfD was of a very, very low quality, which is why this even got renominated in the first place. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that these sources are reliable, but sources can't unreliable because authors are guilty by association. Indy100 is owned by The Independent and journalists write the news pieces. Skibidi Toilet Syndrome is a genuine internet meme. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was completing a source assessment when I realized many of the sources might meet the GNG requirements. Also, Dexerto is still TBD per this RfC. Some of the additional sources provided by Mushy Yank do not meet reliability standards, but there's likely enough where this meme can have its own page. Conyo14 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as per Conyo14. I think there's just enough reliable coverage for this to stay. Moonreach (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weaker Keep, the coverage is here. Unsure on article quality but we can always WP:TNT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just think I want to delete this article. This article is a semi-popular meme, and it is not notable at all. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above and previous AfD discussion Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD discussion didn't even show how Skibidi Toilet was unreliable. This one does. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough coverage for the article to stay. Needs improvement though. Brachy08 _(Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What should also be focused on is if the coverage is reliable, which for now doesn’t seem like it. 2001:1C02:1C1E:100:FCEB:3F2E:D9D4:F132 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then might as well keep it. Ever heard of Proposed Deletion? Brachy08 _(Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not notable at all. Maybe should we delete it? 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, keep and tag it with requiring additional sources. I would also take drafitication as an alternative. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, it has sigcov from several sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom. Sourcing is not adequate and the previous AfD didn't even cover anything and demonstrate its unreliability. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was also never accepted through AfC even though it used to be a draft, it was actually denied twice, first by KylieTastic then again by Hey man im josh, yet it was moved to mainspace by Ca without a review. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context: The previous two declines was because the draft had 0 independent sourcing. AfC is only meant to determine whether an article is more than 1/2 likely to survive an AfD. As a reviewer, I expanded the draft with the sources Vortex added, and decided that it is likelt to survive AfD. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an argument to delete this article. The article looks terrible and there is so many poor sources. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is quite a mess currently, that does not mean there aren't well established sources out there that do establish its notability. Additionally, if we're going to hold the sources without consensus on such a high pedestal for this article, we need to look back at the numerous - and I mean numerous, amounts of not even just past internet meme-related articles, but also internet culture-related articles in general, that are almost entirely reliant on those types of sources. This is a good representation of Generation Alpha's entrance into internet culture and I don't see it not worth being kept as an article. B3251 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is Generation Alpha's first foray into Internet culture is irrelevant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, !votes in AfD should be primarily based on policies, notability, and source assessments. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that was just a personal opinion and I’m not expecting agreement. That doesn’t disregard the fact that so many internet culture-related articles with even less notability are heavily reliant on sources with no consensus. As I stated previously: if we're going to hold this article on such a high pedestal in source reliability, we must go forward with removing other articles/major content from articles such as ai_sponge, Griddy (dance), most entries on List of Generation Z slang, and a major amount of content from numerous modern-day content creators. B3251 (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a double standard. The expectation of a well-sourced article has been everpresent since the notability guideline was established. I discovered this article through repeated external discussions. The work required to find the major amount of content you refer to, for instance, would be insurmountable for someone outside of the zeitgeist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are "well established sources", an AfD is where you prove it. Can't disprove a false negative... or whatever the phrase is. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the series is getting more popular. In a nutcheel (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable at all. What does this means? This is such a big catastrophic mess that I have included in my life. There are many poor sources in this article. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of an article is not determined by the mere existence of unreliable sources or its quality; it's determined by the lack of independent reliable sources covering it in detail. See WP:RUBBISH and the general notability guideline. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want that delete that. Despite this article is really unsourced, delete it anyway. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no offense. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cartoon Brew is a publication with a good reputation in the animation industry (see Jpcase's arguments in this discussion); El Comercio is considered a newspaper of record of Peru; Excélsior is the second oldest newspaper of Mexico City and has been recommended by the BBC as an "established daily" newspaper; and El Español was created by a former director of a Spanish newspaper of record, El Mundo. All of them have covered it in detail, though Excelsior's coverage is a bit less satisfying. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Together with Kotaku, coverage seems enough to meet GNG, though barely. Note that, although Dexerto does not contribute to the notability requirement, it can be cited in a case-by-case basis except for BLP statements per this recent discussion, so it might be fine to cite this interview but not this article. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment agrees with mine. The one thing I worried about was independence since they all embed the video or Twitter in them. Conyo14 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important one thing I thinking about is deletion. This article would be deleted on October 4, 2023. Or better to be kept or deleted? What's your choice? 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or at least draftify. I feel like there's enough sources here to solidify its notability, unreliable sources aside. Though, the article definitely could do with a rewrite of sorts. Jurta talk 15:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify. This video series' quick boom in popularity worldwide is an amazing feat that at least brought attention from reliable news sources as put out on above, though not much for now. But I'm good with this article being draftified as RS's should be considered because not everything that quickly became popular on worldwide Internet would gain attention from such sources, Technoblade being a great example on this. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. As a semi-popular meme, Wikipedia is not enough to load semi-popular meme pages, especially for Skibidi Toilet. Should we have another semi-popular memes like Battle for Dream Island, In the Beninging or Your Majesty, There's a Second Bus Coming? I feel so that Skibidi Toilet is not a fabulous trend today. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you explain this? Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can absolutely explain this. A YouTube video about a Half-Life 2 animation by a semi-popular Roblox YouTuber making overly dramatized videos about specific topics (Yes, I know that Parlo makes his content like that, he isn't really considered a notable YouTuber in the Roblox community) doesn't establish notability at all. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And YouTube itself doesn't establish notability either, especially Parlo or other drama YouTube channels. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not using it as a source, given the overdramaticisation Parlo does to his videos. If someone wants to bring him up as a source, I’d vote deprecate. But it is proof it is not merely semi-popular, given the fanbase. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not using YT to establish notability. However, as shown in the article, Skibidi Toilet has more non-wiki sources than say, for example, Battle for Dream Island. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your IP signature and the Geolocate link in your "User contributions" page, it seems that your account was created next to, if not in the same location as the other unregistered account I've replied above. So if you want to ammend your previous comment, then edit it (by putting the text you remove between <del> and </del>) or reply to it with clarification; please don't post new bulleted lines with bolded recommendations per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line." ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I live in Tapaktuan, South Aceh Regency, Aceh, Indonesia. But my geolocate location is located in Jakarta, Indonesia, not Tapaktuan. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more sources:

--SteveA026 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can see why some people would think that the article is pretty weakly sourced. But Not Just Bikes, a YouTuber with way less subscribers passed WP:GNG

Jothefiredragon (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are enough to pass GNG, such as Kotaku and Cartoon Brew. Skyshifter ^talk 14:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all reasons above. This is by now proven to be not a "normal" meme, but a more influential cultural phenomenon.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG, and the article is nicely sourced. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:3DB0:383D:F205:3B64 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Geolocate, this IP address is located in the same exact location as 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A and 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B, who both have already given their bolded recommendations. Either this is a case of individual computers being located around the same exact proximity of a server~~, or this is a case of WP:LOUTSOCK~~. Nope. My bad, this is probably a dynamic IP. Anyhow, as ObserveOwl has already said, please amend your previous statement instead of making new ones, thanks! Jurta talk 08:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's enough posting, though I have too tired to reply this page. I don't want to be blocked. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:3DB0:383D:F205:3B64 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Skibidi toilet has already met WP:GNG and has enough SIGCOV for it to not be deleted. The article does meet GNG and the previous AfD was closed as a speedy keep. Checking Google through the above links also indicates through many news sources that Skibidi Toilet is being popular. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or draftify and redirect to List of Internet phenomena per nom. None of the sources are reliable, meet WP:RS and this article has room for improvement. This AfD compared to the previous AfD is actually accurate (which changed my mind). The article does not meet WP:GNG but is messy and not ready for being an article, and also fails WP:SIGCOV. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot satisfy GNG without first satisfying SIGCOV. They go hand to hand. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena per nom. This is such a terribly sourced articles with poor statements with a messy improvements. The article is also have blatant sources without passing WP:GNG. Imagine Wikipedia have one article with terrible sources. Although this meme is very popular at all, but delete it anyway. 2001:448A:11A3:16EA:65D5:D7BB:91A9:5D03 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is definitely the same person with a dynamic IP. Closer, please disregard this any of the IP's !votes. Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. This subject in my eyes is about 50/50 on meeting GNG, but if it did meet GNG, this is where WP:SUSTAINED comes into play. I strongly believe all notability on this meme is routine coverage on the newest Internet craze and I have my doubts anything will come of it in the future. Internet memes come and go, and Skibidi Toilet is already starting to fade out. The sources here are likely what it could stay with for as long as the article exists. With that in mind, I believe that this article will not a) serve a purpose and/or b) meet SUSTAINED. NegativeMP1 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a "sufficiently significant amount of time"? Kotaku and Vandal (El Español) made articles about it in July, and three of the Spanish-language sources I've mentioned above were released in September, so the series technically attracted attention over two months. The guideline says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability" (emphasis added), so that's another ambiguity. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". The news don't appear to cover Skibidi Toilet in the context of any event, other than for being popular for some months. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from fading out. Skibidi Toilet videos are still getting 30-40M views on average and the view count remains stable. I think it will be sustained for a long time(it has already been sustained for 8 months). BitByte10 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. The trend will die down in a few months, as is with most memes. Only the ones that are notable enough should have a Wikipedia article. Chicken4War (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 11:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. doesn't seem like it will have much lasting effect, but it just barely has enough sources to have SIGCOV. i'm on the fence with this one. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 12:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ungh, I hope it's not studied by future internet historians. Then again, Beavis and Butthead was looked at though the same lens... Just why people? Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trends exist my man. Whether we abide by them or choose to ignore, you cannot disagree that at some point in history it was popular. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2600:4040:40D8:1B00:F90D:93EA:D43A:8A2F (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE Conyo14 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love skibi toilet 209.160.194.170 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE Conyo14 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article and discussed in this direction are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. This has already gotten sustained coverage for more than half a year, so it's more than just a truly transient meme. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a truly borderline article, but I think there is just enough to tip the scales in favor of a keep vote. As demonstrated by ObserveOwl, several of the sources covering Skibidi Toilet are reasonably reliable. Also, while I would never use the Daily Dot as a source for political content, I think it is an acceptable source for non-controversial internet phenomenon per WP: DAILYDOT/my own experience with the source. Regarding sustained coverage, I think a few months of coverage is fine for a series of YouTube shorts. I don’t find this length of coverage to be especially persuasive, but its long enough not to drop a “delete per WP:NOTNEWS.” Honestly, I think keeping this and merging the article into the List of Internet Phenomena article are both perfectly reasonable outcomes, although I’m slightly more inclined to keep for the previously listed reasons. Spirit of Eagle (talk)