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. Consensus seems to favor Keep with a minority supporting some sort of merge. If there is a desire to pursue the merge option further that discussion can take place elsewhere along with the suggestion for an article name change. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tide Pod Challenge[edit]

Tide Pod Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't believe this meets any of the notability standards. It's a recent internet meme rather than anything substantive, and the only references are to sites that talk about it being a meme. I could see it being notable if there were children poisoning themselves with it, but at this point it's nothing more than a joke on the internet. WidowXTracer2Cute (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: So I've added some more information addressing the valid concern with a lack of health-related risks/concepts relating to Tide PODS in the article. There's now a much more substantial amount of health-related information than previously included, although I would like to mention that the nominator's rationale that "the only references are to sites that talk about it being a meme," is a little misleading, as at the time of AfD nom, references included a Consumer Reports article discussing health-risks posed by the PODS, a CBS News article discussing the CDC's warning about the health risks related to the PODS, as well as an actual reference to a study in the Journal of Medical Toxicology.

Now the article has 22 references, and even if you exclude the Straight Dope message board and Onion references (ones I included to provide sources for what many media publications credit with the meme's origins), then the article still has references from various different and reliable sources, (discussing everything from the packaging of the Tide PODS used to prevent eating them, to the meme itself) certainly enough sources to allow this article to pass notability guidelines.

I would like to add that "a joke on the Internet" should not be excluded from having their own Wiki article, especially in cases like this, where the joke on the Internet has significant coverage in reliable sources.

Finally, I would like to also comment on the original reasoning for this article's AfD tagging (Obscure internet meme. Article seemingly made more as a joke than in good faith). On that first point, I hope I've been able to establish that this isn't an obscure Internet meme, as the article now has sufficient coverage from reliable sources. And on that second point, I can't deny that this meme is IMO one of the funnier ones I've enjoyed during my time on the Internet. However, I have experience with legitimately creating and editing articles related to Internet memes, so I can assure this article was made in good faith. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Most of this information is already in laundry detergent pod, and this article is a mess. We're not Snopes, and this article reads as dangerous to me as actually encouraging the practice (kids have indeed had major problems from eating them; it's not a joke). The one mention in 'laundry detergent pod' of the meme is by far enough about this topic (and some parts of this article are good sourcing for the other article and should be considered for addition into it). Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What policy says to go out of our way to avoid that which might encourage such behavior? Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I fully disagree with this article being "dangerous". I didn't write this in a way to glorify eating them, just wrote information that is representative of the concepts covered in reliable sources. You're right, kids have had problems eating it, which is why health-risk information is included and objectively cited by credible, reliable sources. You could argue that the fact that eating Tide Pods became a meme is dangerous, but then it isn't Wikipedia's job to censor real-world phenomenon or what the Internet causes to be become popular. The one mention in laundry detergent pod that I added, about the meme existing, is not sufficient IMO, because it doesn't delve deeper into what the meme fully encompasses (i.e. it's a satirical, mocking look at eating the pods; common trope of calling pods a "forbidden fruit" for some reason), and also this article deals with eating Tide Pods specifically, as opposed to a general laundry detergent pod. It warrants separation b/c ideally the laundry detergent pod article would cover the pod concept overall (introduction and history of the product, different brands, packaging, health concerns, a distinguishing of pods from conventional detergent), whereas this article deals with just the consumption of specifically Tide Pods, which seems to be a much more common phenomenon even past the meme, which is why I added a health-risk section in this article. Soulbust (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge anything relevant into the laundry detergent pod and/or Tide articles. This really doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia page; and, as Nate pointed out, the currently existing page is a real mess. That said, I can see the fact that this has somehow turned into its own weird meme as being worthy of a mention. --Pikavangelist (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to the article on detergent pods and redirect. No evidence that eating Tide pods is a bigger actual health problem than eating other brands of detergent pods. This is like having an article Sticking beans up your nose and then creating an article on Sticking kidney beans up your nose. Edison (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The problem with that beans analogy is that eating Tide Pods aren't just noted for being a health-risk. If that's all this article had, then yeah I would 100% support a merge to laundry detergent pod. The thing is Tide Pods specifically are mentioned in every reference. And a good half of this article is based on the Internet meme around eating Tide pods. Like there's a very prevalent specification of Tide Pods made in the meme.

The thing is pretty much every sentence in this article is referenced properly with a reliable source. My concern with merging it into laundry detergent pod is that there would be an undue weight placed on Tide's pods on that article, and while you can probably find a couple sources supporting the concept of children eating other brands' pods, you'll fail at generalizing the meme which is integral to the whole point of this warranting a stand-alone article. If you merge this to Tide (brand), the problem with that will be again undue weight, this time on the pods, as Tide sells a laundry list (pun intended) of products. If this article was created under Tide pods I could really see all of your points. But the article is precisely centered around Eating the Tide pods, which agreeably is a ridiculous concept at first glance. But I feel if one goes through the article's sources, and examines the sheer coverage of this concept both as an Internet meme and a health risk, then it kinda speaks for itself that this article should't be merged.

Finally, I'd just like to ask how is this article a "mess"? It's organized properly, with a section discussing the meme, and another section discussing the health-risks. It's referenced properly, with each reference following one standard style. The lead section can probably benefit from a more accurate and filled summary of the article, but I really don't see the "mess" of it. I'd be more than willing to work to improve it, but there hasn't been any real elaboration given to that concern.

Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with laundry detergent pod article. Somewhat notable, but not necessarily enough to warrant its own article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep—Media coverage has increased since then. I do think it needs to be moved to a better title though. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with Laundry detergent pod with redirect. Even if "Tide" is used in most iterations of the meme, it's still not central to what the meme is about, and I don't think the meme has enough distinctive character to stand as its own article. Sure it might mean that the word "Tide" will appear with a bit more frequency in the detergent pod article, but I think that's a more minor issue than having this article as a stand-alone, and one that can be minimized with some good copy editing anyway. Jhugh95 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change vote to Keep - in the days since, coverage has increased sharply, and I believe this now meets notability for a full article. Jhugh95 (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to laundry detergent pod per above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Soulburst and its prevalence on social media.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 23:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As much as one may not like it, memes get significant coverage these days. Page should not be merged as it meets GNG, and it is clear from media coverage that the brand of the product is a key part of the meme. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge Although I would agree that this topic is significant as a meme, I believe it should be moved to laundry detergent pod. Nanophosis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why, though? Why a merge to laundry detergent pod? If it's significant as a meme, then it warrants its own standalone article, just as other memes significant enough to draw widespread and in-depth media coverage from reliable sources. Soulbust (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename This dangerous trend has been widely covered in the press and deserves an article as many of these social media fads, what's unfitting is the name, which is very unencyclopedic. Gothbag (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How so? I originally named it "Eating Tide Pods" after the meme. The meme is undoubtedly the cause for this social media trend. Without the meme you would just have an annual report by Consumer Reports and whatnot. "Eating Tide Pods" is a very accurate and fitting title for this article. If it were to be renamed what are some alternative names for the article? Because as I said before, I named it "Eating Tide Pods" because it is centered on specifically eating Tide Pods as opposed to just a general Tide Pods article, which honestly, at this point would have an enormous undue weight problem related to eating them. Soulbust (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This dangerous meme has significant coverage to back it up. If we keep this page going, even more coverage can be found and help raise health awareness for those who don't know how unhealthy a Tide pod is for people. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 19:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. I think the concept is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, but the appropriate place is within the context of Laundry detergent pod. A standalone article and/or content fork really isn't warranted. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Has significant coverage. Some people, sadly, are idiots who will believe everything they read on the Internet. What happened to Lolcats, Weegee, and YTP? KMF (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and rename. While the meme has significant coverage, it would be highly irresponsible to keep the article's title as "Eating Tide Pods". -Mardus /talk 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Comment Perhaps an alternative name could be Tide Pods meme or something like that. I still think "Eating Tide Pods" is a perfectly apt and accurate name. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to keep people from eating Tide Pods. The meme itself is based around eating Tide Pods and the health-risk related to Tide Pods is linked to eating them. Soulbust (talk)
• Delete or, in the alternative, merge. A brief flurry of coverage is not "significant" or in-depth, and to the extent it is noteworthy it can be mentioned in a line or two of the main article.
• Merge Ugandan Knuckles has its own section in the Knuckles the Echidna and it is a big trend on the internet right now sans the media coverage. This article should merge with Laundry detergent pod because the eating pods meme is not limited to Tide. FunksBrother (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, honestly in my opinion I think Ugandan Knuckles can probably be able to warrant its own article, because there is far more reliable coverage than just those few references used in the mention it has on the Knuckles the Echidna page, but that is a different situation and as I've learned over the years, different articles or situations should not be used as arguments for other articles. As for that idea that "the eating pods meme is not limited to Tide", well I disagree, as for the meme—for all intents and purposes—is limited to Tide. Sure, theoretically, some teenager out there could eat some Gain Flings. But, none of the references or sources included in this article make mention of Internet users joking about eating Gain flings (or any other brand's pods), nor about people literally consuming any specifically non-Tide detergent pods. Additionally, and I'm not using this as an argument for keep, as I've already given my reasons above—but it's intriguing that a google image search of laundry detergent pod (here) takes a while to pop up with images of non-Tide pods. This meme heavily, almost exclusively centers around Tide's pods as opposed to other brands. Also the "brief" flurry of coverage shouldn't be an argument, as "brief" is subjective, and also once a subject meets notability guidelines/achieves notability, it can not lose that notability. Sure, it can fade from relevancy, or "popularity", but Wikipedia has a GNG guideline that outlines a Wikipedia article requiring notability, not relevancy or popularity. Soulbust (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I wanna clarify on that Google images note; I meant an image of another brand's pod(s) by itself. There are some images that do pop up that compile a lot of different brands' pods, but you'll see orange & blue a lot, and a lot by itself. Soulbust (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Move to Tide Pods. The meme may not warrant an article of its own but supports the notability of Tide Pods in general. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in support of the move to Tide Pods as an alternative. We would need to move edit history of this article into that one though, I believe. Soulbust (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge or Keep This stupid challenge (seriously, we're in Darwin Award territory) has received much extensive coverage, though it likely is to be limited in time as YouTube is now actively taking down such videos to avoid copycats. Whether it can sustain a stand-alone or not, I'm not sure, but this is definitely something to be kept somewhere. --Masem (t) 22:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, meets notability guidelines. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It's certainly notable enough for its own article. I guess I'd be okay with a merge, if no information is lost, but merging all too often results in lost information, now, or later. Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to something more encyclopedic, like Consumption of laundry detergent pods. Other than that, keep. Hist4ian (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Huge story. Not sure why someone wanted to remove it. Niqabu (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and Rename, preferably to something along the lines of "human consumption of tide pods". The tide pod challenge itself started receiving coverage in late December of 2017, but this coverage started to skyrocket in January. I believe that this article should be expanded to give a general overview of eating tide pods, since this is a topic that has been receiving coverage in reliable sources since tide pods were introduced in 2012. For example, Consumer Reports wrote an article back in 2012 discussing a CDC report about eating tide pods. I agree that this subject is a bit cringe worthy, but it nonetheless meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[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.