Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Stars

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. It's snowing. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Stars

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. The article relies entirely on user-generated sources (KnowYourMeme, TikTok) and includes no independent, reliable secondary coverage establishing notability or significance. Existence alone isn’t sufficient for inclusion; we need substantive analysis or coverage by reliable sources. Requesting community discussion. Acrom12 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find significant coverage from reliable sources on this topic. Not notable. death pact (again) 16:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on no.3 i do have a blog from a confirmed website about chicken stars. Also this meme is actually a real meme and cannot be fake as many people have reported seeing the meme and this scene has existed. Basketballer7309 (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you have a "blog" from a "confirmed website" - WP:RELIABLE clearly states that blogs are not reliable sources. In addition, as Acrom12 already said, the article only cites from sites like TikTok and YouTube. These are all primary sources that aren't reliable. Sources in an article should be WP:SECONDARY. Please read WP:UGC. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Clear GNG failure. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources on this topic. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've draftified the article, I think we can close this now. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable meme. If, miraculously, this is kept, it needs to be rewritten almost entirely to meet minimum standards of good prose and referencing. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not popular. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I mean, half of the links are linked TO WIKIPEDIA. I'm not even sure that's allowed. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has 2 references to Wikipedia, this fails WP:GNG and has a lot of error in spelling. Gabriel120YT (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete how is this slop still here someone just get rid of it already, this is very obviously not notable.

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is so ugly, sucks and poor. And the meme is unpopular. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, easily fails WP:GNG. Some of the citations are literally to Wikipedia, and there's no reason this article should continue to exist HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 01:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacking enough SIGCOV to support notability as a standalone, at the very least I may consider it being merged any salvageable info to the Leo movie. Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete and utter lack of reliable sources. Also the meme is stupid

BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BombCraft8 I agree, the meme sucks. It's better to listen the The Housemartins than this meme.

The Housemartins is better VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:SIGCOV entirely. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very non-notable, stupid meme, and the article is horrendously written. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. This meme sucks! VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in RS. paintdvd ^{talk to me} 00:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surprised this article isn't deleted yet, there's an overwhelming consensus to delete. Plus, it fails virtually every guideline on notability. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:17, 26 October 2025 (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.