Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6-7 (meme): Difference between revisions

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 speedy keep‎. There is an overwhelming consensus that the subject of this article meets the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6-7 (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. 6-7 is only notable for having gained traction on TikTok or social media platforms of the like, and it has yet to have any significant cultural impact. The origins are incredibly unclear, with it seeming to have multiple different and disconnected origin points (the height of a basketball player, a song by Skrilla, a viral exclamation by a child in a crowd, and many more), meaning the article is essentially classifying what seem to be multiple concurrent trends under a singular umbrella term. The sources, while numerous, are mostly short and inadequate summaries of the meme’s general subject and largely fail to qualify the subject of the article as being notable or impactful.

Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, not an urban dictionary – it simply isn’t the place for excessive documentation of internet phenomena which have had barely any significance or impact beyond their host platforms, and are likely to fade off as newer trends emerge.

Edit: Since it seems the consensus is overwhelming against this proposal, how about we instead move the article’s contents to Glossary of 2020s slang, or a page of the like? There do seem to be enough sources to warrant the topic’s coverage, but I don’t think there’s enough information for a standalone article. IdaDactyl (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of reliable sources 108.18.38.92 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Even if this meme dies in a few months, the significance and sources it already has are enough. Also, WP:CRYSTAL, since the future of the meme doesn’t really matter here. 2600:4041:57E9:8E00:6DD1:569A:2802:9CFF (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Day Creature, and also, I would be surprised if it hasn’t yet had a noticable impact. Oreocooke (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above. The article is more than just a simple dictionary entry, it goes through origin, history and the spread of it. The term is notable and has had a significant culture impact. Its sources (USA Today, NYT, People) show its notability. Even if the effects of the term ‘fade[s] off’, notability isn’t temporary. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 21:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reliable sources are mentioned, it passes WP:GNG, and WP:SUSTAINED too as there are sources as early as March.[1]

WhatADrag07 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable; the OP argument is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 22:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per veko. Nominator did not present a guideline-backed argument. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Italian Brainrot wasnt deleted, then why would this meme be deleted? OP’s argument isn’t that good.199.127.237.26 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should definitely stay. It has made a significant cultural impact on memes and teenagers. There are many other “unsignificant” memes on this encyclopedia according to your logic still up, so why should we delete this one? Uhhlucas (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This article is very notable as seen in the cultural impact in people and significant coverage with sources. And also all per above. 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 05:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article seems notable to me. This meme is as big enough as it is. Underdwarf58 (talk) 08:40, 8 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.