Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TikTok food trends


 * 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. Per major rework, there is a consensus that the article meets both general notability and LISTN requirements. This factors in a large number of withdrawn/amended !votes, as well as one !vote cast by a now blocked sock being excluded (though that would not have changed the result). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

TikTok food trends

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. nor a recipe collection. This appears to be schoolwork or coursework and has no place here. A full member of WP:NOT Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN by nominator My reason for nomination has been 100% corrected in the article. The article may now stand or fall on its own merits.WP:NOT no longer applies  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 06:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , When you withdraw your nomination, you have the right to close it yourself as a "Speedy Keep" if you'd like.--🌀 Kieran207 - talk 🌀 23:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if nobody else has presented an argument to delete/merge/redirect. Otherwise OP can just strike their own !vote and add a new one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is set to run to whatever conclusion it reaches, and be closed whenever it is closed. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The article meets WP:LISTN which overrides WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic of TikTok food trends has been discussed as a single topic and in groups by several sources such as Insider, Bustle, Parade, Today.com, Delish.com, HuffPost, Brit, Us Magazine, Thrillst, Hypebae, Impact Magazine, Mashable, CNN, Business Insider, The Chant, 12 Tomatoes, BRND House, Sorted, Lifestyle Asia, Neoreach, Good Morning America, The Telegraph, Mashed, London Easter, The Cooking World, SheKnows, MSN, Taste, Newsbreak, Bake Magazine, Australian Daily Telegraph, Elite Daily, Foodsided, Toat, WNOL London, My Daily Magazine, LAMag, The Philippine Star, nine.com.au, Inklings, Nouse, VegNews, SheKnows, PopSugar, PopSugar again, PopSugar Again Again, HypeBae again, Insider again, North Jersey Media Group, Mashed again, YPulse, RND, Bake Mag and much, much more. Also, it has garnered academic coverage, and you know how much Wikipedia has an appetite for that stuff (get it, food, appetite?) The article does need changing from its current state, however, as the list of ingredients makes this feel like a guide and how-to. We also, like other lists, need to have a selection criteria, and I don't know if this article currently has that. There have been expressed concerns about this being "schoolwork or coursework" from universities, but that does not relate to this discussion. What matters is that this is a notable topic that is not fancruft and meets WP:LISTN. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good god, delete this atrocity. WP:NOTHOWTO. WP:FANCRUFT TAXIDICAE💰  16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOTGUIDE on this synthetic collection of recipes. -- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stuck, as article is no longer a collection of recipes.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear WP:NOT Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete– the concept of an article on TikTok food trends could pass WP:GNG in theory, but but this is just completely WP:NOT. theleekycauldron (talk• contribs) (they/them) 17:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The article has been about WP:TNT'ed by . It does pass WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reping because the article has gone through significant changes, and whether or not this article still falls under WP:FANCRUFT is iffy at best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are articles to show that this passes WP:GNG, only from WP:RSP-greenlit sources:
 * one from the Los Angeles Times on the fufu challenge
 * three separate articles from The Washington Post on feta cheese, and [another one] on tortillas
 * two articles the The New York Times.
 * ya know what I'm done just search "site:[any news website] tiktok food" and you'll get a few results. This passes WP:GNG with flying colours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * also pinging in light of recent developments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: what? This, by WP:COMMONSENSE, does not belong in an encyclopedia and probably needs a WP:TNT. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!|!!1!1|11!|!! (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete : WP:NOTHOWTO, lists of actual recipe instructions are not appropriate for Wikipedia. — MarkH21talk 19:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The overhaul means this is no longer a clear WP:NOT violation. Some cleanup is still needed to use the higher-quality sourcing that clearly exists (most of the article currently isn't based on such RSes), but this is currently a GNG-passing subject that's no longer a how-to. — MarkH21talk 18:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Destroy Delete per what everyone else said. AdoTang (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: If this was tagged with fancruft or promo, I would delete everything except the first sentence, and that won't establish notability. Someone either needs to rapidlychange this or WP:TNT for actual encyclopedic content. (I am new to AFD, lmk if I'm doing something wrong) Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 21:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Swapping to keep in light of what HumanxAnthro did (thanks for doing it!) It now passes notability clearly with RS, and therefore it should be kept, but the topics discussed in the article don't match the title (possible rename to "List of TikTok food trends"?). (I am new to AfD, let me know if I'm doing something wrong) Sennecaster   ( What now? ) 00:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Might be a notable subject, but this needs to go, and fast.--🌀 Kieran207 - talk 🌀 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of recent improvements, I am changing my vote to Weak Keep--🌀 Kieran207 - talk 🌀 23:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This does seem to be coursework — the talk page has two peer reviews, and there is also Draft:Humanitarian Development Peacebuilding Nexus. The names mentioned in the peer reviews trace to students at Northeastern University. I am pinging the other users that seem to be in on this course, and, in hopes that you can notify the instructor about this issue on Dana's page. The page is nearly certainly headed for deletion and I do not want this to affect Dana's grade. In the future, your professor should look into the Wikipedia Education Program.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 22:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Revising to a keep vote. My note to the Northeastern professor still applies. List inclusion criteria should be considered and potentially a rename to "List of TikTok food trends" per Sennecaster. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody above. WP:NOTGUIDE specifically says that a Wikipedia article should not read like a cookbook. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing the above recommendation because the recipes have been removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. Obvious fancruft. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, but with clean-up and a criteria of what items to include. After nominating a similar list of incidents at George Floyd protests, I kind of regret it, but I'll keep that discussion going anyway. Getting back to this list, I'm already seeing a passionate hate for this article, with everyone here wanting it to burn it to flames, but (as someone who doesn't care about social media or TikTok) I'm gonna save it right now.
 * Even more coverage when using the phrase "food hacks".
 * I have deleted the list of ingredients and recipes so know it doesn't burn your eyes. Your welcome :) 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to remind people that WP:NOT pages are not guidelines for what topics are allowed, they're pages for how articles on Wikipedia should look and read. Please use notability guideline pages when elaborating your !votes 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is explicitly listed as WP:DEL-REASON#14. I’ll take a look at how the article has changed though. — MarkH21talk 23:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably didn't make myself clear. An article looking like what it should WP:NOT be isn't invalid for Afd (in some cases, although that's more of a cleanup thing than an AFd thing), but the topic's notability and coverage is the ultimate hammer. Thank you very much! :) 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has been cleaned up since all of the above delete !voters opined, so while that doesn't affect various claims to notability and some of the WP:NOT claims, it does address WP:TNT and the WP:NOT claims pertaining to recipes. The sources identified by Humanxanthro show this subject has been covered extensively as a group/phenomenon, meaning this passes WP:LISTN. It could be either a list or an article with that coverage, though, so it also passes WP:GNG. This isn't a random intersection of topics; food trends on Tik Tok reach far beyond Tik Tok. Perhaps what would make the most sense would be an article/list on social media food trends in general (covering e.g. rainbow bagels from Instagram, too), but this is a fine start to that page even if it goes that way. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find academic analysis of food trends specifically on TikTok. The academic literature on food trends focuses on them of all social platforms in general, so I'm for this option too. Plus, there's an extremely short article named Food trends that absolutely could be expanded. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: one should probably note that many of the early comments were prior to HumanxAnthro's overhaul, when the article was (stunningly) an actual attempt at a recipe book and also part of some unlisted (at least, I can't find the source) professor/teacher's course which uses Wikipedia. Much as we can all pat ourselves on the back for hating the young whippersnappers and their silly impenetrable garbage, "TikTok food trends" is a notable topic with significant impact on millions to tens of millions of people worldwide. Much of the article's sourcing, along with HumanxAnthro's above, is borderline-to-unusable, but the best includes The Telegraph, CNN, The Conversation, Bustle and Mashable, and there are a fair few more on the mid-good level, which takes the topic at least to the midpoint of the inclusionist-exclusionist spectrum of stringency. Were this to be deleted, it must be draftified instead as it appears to be an assignment which could be actively improved or which a copy of is needed for the assessor. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN: Obviously this must proceed to  closure since so many have opined. Those are the procedures. This note is just here to draw  attention to the withdrawal at the head of this discussion. I withdrew the  nomination  a few  minutes ago  after the article had been brought out of WP:NOT, which was  all  I was concerned about when I  nominated it.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WDAFD, you cannot withdraw a nom once it's been supported by somebody else. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I took Timtrent to mean by Obviously this must proceed to closure since so many have opined. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bilorv Exactly. It seems daft to nominate it and stick to the nomination when I have been convinced otherwise. We cannot legislate for everything. Redrose64 what would you suggest I do?  I'm going with an IAR Withdrawal because the article is entirely different from the article I nominated. I suppose an alternative would be to suggest it be kept, but that just looks somewhat surreal. Patently I cannot self close it. It was not a mistaken nomination, but it would be a mistake to almost pretend nothing has changed. The discussion was almost a snowball delete. Then the article was edited. Now it is highly likely to be kept, a thing I support.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time that I compose this post, a simple tally of non-struck !votes shows 5 delete !votes to 9 keep (including Timtrent). This is a majority for keep of less than two-thirds, but it's not overwhelming (see WP:SNOW), so unless several more delete !votes are struck or changed to "keep"), this should be allowed to run for the normal seven-day period. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Shashank5988 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shashank5988 forgive me, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I wonder how closely you have studied the article as it is presented  currently?  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 07:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clicking the Wikipedia reliable sources search at the top of the AFD shows clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. The first result is CNN https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/29/us/tiktok-food-trends-youth-trnd/index.html and then you have The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/put-years-biggest-tiktok-food-trends-test-give-honest-verdict/ among others.   D r e a m Focus  14:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see a reason to keep article about non notable trends. NavjotSR (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources give it significant coverage, so it meets the general notability guidelines. We go based on what reliable sources say, not personal opinions.   D r e a m Focus  18:40, 24 April 2021 (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.