Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mannequin Challenge (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 00:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge

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)

After looking at BEFoRe, sources mostly shows only from the same year 2016 and there is no other reliable source from other year. This is a case of WP:NEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you linked to WP:NEWS as it points to Wikipedia:News, which is related to "news about Wikipedia." - Fuzheado | Talk 13:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think WP:LASTING is not met here. Weak delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but I am on the fence about that. The meme pretty much disappeared after the calendar flipped to 2017, and in 2016 where literally every person on the internet was talking about the "Mannequin Challenge". The coverage of the meme in the news and RS is almost unlimited. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Legacy" section shows some sort of an impact... It was still brought up during the pandemic [1], so it's not entirely forgotten. How often does a meme get discussed in peer-reviewed journals? I think that alone shows impact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Mannequin Challenge dataset is a thing. [2], being used by scientists as late as 2020. That's more legacy than the Chromebook Challenge has at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chromebook challenge is a revival of the Devious lick challenge. Nothing new ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an example of a viral phenomenon with a lot of cultural impact, which also has some academic analysis. See [3]. Clearly meets WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 07:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet challenges#Music where it is listed as a WP:ATD. It doesn't seem to pass WP:SUSTAINED, appears WP:REFBOMBed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Guardian article is an opinion piece that is critical in nature. The author’s perspective is personal, analytical, and based on cultural critique. They do not view the Mannequin Challenge merely as an entertaining trend but as a reflection of societal psyche, responding to the fast-paced lifestyle of the digital age. This perspective is tied to the social-political context of 2016 (e.g., election tensions)[4]. The Herald-Mail article is also an opinion piece, highly critical and condemnatory. It meets the criteria for a review, as it includes the author’s clear opinion, evaluation, and sharp criticism, as it completely dismisses the cultural or creative aspects of the Mannequin Challenge[5]. -SachinSwami (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did the nominator do any research before stating "there is no other reliable source from other year?" A quick search shows not only numerous mentions of the Mannequin Challenge since 2016, but in 2019, there was a prominent technology story about its application to artificial intelligence: "Google researchers trained AI with your Mannequin Challenge videos: They used 2,000 YouTube clips to improve AI's depth perception." (Engadget). More links below.
- If you did the Mannequin Challenge, you are now advancing robotics research, MIT Technology Review, June 26, 2019
- Google researchers trained AI with your Mannequin Challenge videos, Engadget, Jun 27, 2019
- Mannequin Challenge videos teach computers to see, Sophos, July 5, 2019

Let's put our energies into better things than trying to delete clearly notable phenomena like these that have even been incorporated into scientific research. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:39, 9 June 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.