Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coems


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Coems

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of notability; sources are only TikTok, which, besides being user-generated and unreliable, sort of counts as a primary source. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero independent sources. We're not knowyourmeme.  Qcne  (talk)  13:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete No sourcing for this trend found. Could be TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete—complete lack of SIGCOV. Creator seems to be inexperienced, given the copyvio images. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  15:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to be about a emoji and something on tik tok, I can't find sources about the meme. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - (note):I have redirected Coems (Trend) to Coems, that is probably safe to delete in any case. As to this, I am not finding coverage outside of TikTok & Youtube to indicate this is notable. ASUKITE 16:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources cited, simply TicTok links that’s are primary and unreliable. Clearly fails WP:GNG. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.