Talk:Among Us chicken nugget

Merge into Among Us

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines and is just an article about a specific Among Us meme and should therefore be merged with the Memes & Mods section of the Among Us article. Derpytoucan (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. Soulware2 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

although looking at it now it could also be merged into unusual ebay listing Soulware2 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. As DecafPotato said, the sources are reliable and discuss the subject in detal, thus it passes WP:GNG. Not only does it pass as being notable due to being discussed in-detail by various reliable sources, it would also make **no** sense whatsoever to merge this into the Memes & Mods section of the Among Us article. First of all, that subsection was used to briefly describe **how** the game led to the creation of these memes, and not to deeply analyse these memes themselves. Secondly, it would make no sense to include an analysis of this chicken nugget pareidolia, as the only relation it has to the game Among Us is within its appearance. Other than that, it has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of the original game and including it as part of an article about the game would be completely and utterly nonsensical.Arkansore (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty much on the fence here. I wouldn't personally call it a bad choice if someone does merge this article into Among Us, but I do realize the amount of significant coverage this surprisingly got (i've never even heard of this meme before). Not sure if the relation to the game is just in appearance, as this wouldn't exist if Among Us wasn't as popular as it is. A bigger discussion is probably needed for this to determine whether to put the WP:SCOPE of this meme on an article or a section. Sparkl^talk 16:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The subject clearly passes notability guidelines, and is (in my opinion) not suitable to being a subsection of the game article considering how different they are as subjects. The nugget is notable for being the most expensive nugget ever sold, not necessarily for being an Among Us meme. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A Guinness World Records title doesn't really make it worth a Wikipedia article. Like, there's independent trusted media sources covering the World's Largest Pizza, but that still doesn't mean that the World's Largest Pizza needs a Wiki page. The Among Us Chicken Nugget is related with the broader Among Us meme culture, which is covered adequately in the Among Us article. This article is very verbose for a piece about a chicken nugget, and, honestly, seems to exist as a sort of amusing fodder for twitter meme pages. Theodore Christopher (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOPAGE, which notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topics as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Without questioning its notability, I do think that it is better to cover this in the context of the Among Us article itself, especially in the section related to memes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose merging to Among Us since it has nothing to do with the game. Either keep it as is, delete, or merge to list of Internet memes. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet it has "Among Us" in the title and is shaped like a Among Us crewmate Soulware2 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And the article mentions it too. What do you mean it has nothing to do with Among Us? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the game itself, even if it was noted for its similar look. It does not have any connection to the initial game, gameplay, it does not contribute to the discussion about the game (Among Us); therefore it has nothing to do with the Among Us article, even if it is linked to the idea of "Among Us".Arkansore (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The only reason why sources have commented on it is because of the relationship to Among Us. Of course it's not part of the game, gameplay, development, whatever, but it's definitely part of its cultural impact. Also, it's not what I think, it's the reliable sources listed that mention Among Us. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

How many "Cultural References" sections are out there in media pages all over Wikipedia that have nothing to do with the original work as well? Yoyofsho16 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It literally, officially had nothing to do with the game until the Internet made it so. It's not like a licensed Among Us meal or something. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a Memes and mods section that discusses events related to Among Us. Sure, the chicken nugget has nothing to do with the gameplay, but it still has to do with the game. It is often that there are sections in articles that include topics that deals with the article's subject (similar to the chicken nugget dealing with the subject of Among Us), even if the reverse isn't true (the Among Us game does not at all deal with the subject matter of the Among Us chicken nugget). Among Us has had a cultural impact, and that cultural impact should be included n the article, including the chicken nugget. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"has "Among Us" in the title". What title, this article?

"shaped like an Among Us crewmate". It sure does... I wonder why...? 🤔 Neocorelight (Talk) 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We mention what reliable sources cover, whether it's deemed "official" by the creators or not. Take Sanic for instance. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I can see a brief mention at the parent article, but this article is currently ridiculously bloated with cruft. Very little of substance here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT and Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  The sources are reliable and discuss the subject in detail, therefore passing WP:GNG. Arkansore (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please give a closer look at some other things though, like WP:NOT or WP:MERGEREASON. The GNG is the bare minimum to clear, not a guarantee that an article should exist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  But the article is not written in news style, nor does it function as the news (the chicken nugget came into existence almost 2 years ago), it has lasting notability as the most expensive chicken nugget sold. Additionally, there is way more than sufficient coverage by reliable sources focusing on the Among Us chicken nugget rather than Among Us as a whole, thus making it pass against merging by way of its individual notability as a whole. I do not want to repeat points I've used before, but it really would not fit in to have this information about the Among Us chicken nugget included into the Among Us article anyway, as the vast majority of the information to be said about the nugget is not relevant to the game Among Us itself whatsoever. I think there is way more than the bare minimum supporting the article's existence and the article should thus not be merged. Arkansore (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  A sentence like "In (year), a chicken nugget in the shape of an Among Us character went viral and garnered coverage from many publications after being auctioned off for (money value)." would cover about 90% of the substance of this article. There's so much junk cluttering the article. It doesn't matter what the starting bid was, if it was packaged in plastic for freshness, etc etc. Even with all the bloat it's still basically a stub. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. I honestly thought this was a joke at first. Altho it probably only deserves a sentence on the article since this is pure coincidence and not deliberate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not an encyclopedic article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC isn't a valid reason for deletion. DecafPotato (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  @DecafPotato: Ok, fine. My argument is that it fails WP:SUSTAINED. All of the pertinent articles with significant coverage are from a few days in April 2022. A nugget is obviously not going to garner continued coverage worthy of a standalone article. I won't deny that there are certain notable individual food items out there, but this is not one of them due to its lack of cultural impact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Clearly notable on its own. Reveived a number of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Skyshifter ^talk 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If it was just the daily news cycle that covered it then I would consider it, but the subject has broad and lasting coverage based on the sources provided. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Most of the article is a lot of nothing, and the most detailed content on this page is about Szechaun Sauce, which appears to be merely an attempt to lengthen/bloat the article. This topic basically has no details/content to discuss other than QAnon conspiracy theory, and will inevitably remain a stub. Wikipedia is not a place to report the rise and origins of every meme that passes notability standards. Sure the article passes WP:GNG with flying colors, but that's not the only requirement. I don't see a reason to agree with the sentiment that the article is straight-up unencyclopedic, but I do think it should be merged per WP:NOPAGE.

There are concerns that this topic has nothing to do about the Among Us page. However, it does. In particular, it has to do with the "Memes and mods" section TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support. Shortsighted view of "notability," there's thousands of novelty auctions in internet history. This is a blip. Yoyofsho16 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This artice seems to be very notable, even having reliable sources. And it also has an eye catching scandal that you'd never expect from a chicken nugget. It doesn't make sense to move it to Among Us. Chicken4War (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, having reliable sources is the bare minimum. What is the "eye catching scandal"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The subject of the article, even though somewhat odd, is part of popular culture, and is able to pass notability guidelines. Instead of merging the article, it is suggested that unnecessary information is instead removed from the article. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. @Soulware2, @Derpytoucan, @Red-tailed hawk @Sparkl, @Sergecross73, @Soetermans, @Blaze Wolf, @Zxcvbnm, and @TheGEICOgecko—I've rewritten the article with more sources and more weight given to reception and lasting aspects of notability (even though notability isn't temporary, it's still important). Please tell me what you think and if there's anything I can further due to the article to improve it to a state where it is worth keeping. DecafPotato (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't address my concerns above, no. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

When you say "this article is currently ridiculously bloated with cruft", what in the article are you referring to? I can help to resolve the concerns should examples be given. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Things like talking about how it was packaged, sealed and frozen. Totally trivial. The entire "background" section is pretty much irrelevant too. It's padded and bloated beyond belief. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

i'll remove some trivial stuff in a second when i have time, but as for the background, it's just two sentences saying "this is a game that became popular and has these characters" (important info) and "this is a meal that contains this product" (also important) DecafPotato (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's better, although I still don't think it deserves its own article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's better, but it doesn't move the needle on WP:NOPAGE imo. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A very large part of the references are WP:LAUNDERING. Take a look at the dates, 15 of the 18 sources were all published between June 2nd and June 8th. That's WP:NOTNEWS to me, not WP:LASTING. The only lasting is the Guinness record thing. This source doesn't even mention the nugget in question. Like Sergecross73 pointed out, this can be mentioned in a sentence or two in the main article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it WP:LAUNDERING? "Laundering" refers to recycled press releases, and there is nothing of the sort here. And the Insider source is just there to provide the date of the meal launch, it can be removed if needed. DecafPotato (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, my mistake, that doesn't apply. Crossed out. It's still WP:SENSATION to me though. Imagine it wasn't shaped like an Among Us character and we're discussing a random piece of fastfood that some paid an exorbitant amount of money for, that wouldn't be worthy of an article. It's only because of Among Us we're discussing it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In case this hasn't been made painfully obvious already (though I haven't actually put it in a message with a boldface opinion), I oppose the merge, as there is no good target article, little additional context available from merging it into an article like Among Us other than what is already in this article, the subject satisfies WP:GNG, the coverage isn't "routine" as laid out in WP:NOTNEWS, and any rationale I've put above that I forgot to also put here. DecafPotato (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow this conversation blew up. It's funny seeing everyone so invested in a piece of chicken. Jokes aside, I'm not really expressing either a merge (WP:NOPAGE) or a keep on this one, as I'm just commenting on this matter. The article looks a bit shorter, but the prose is by far upgraded from what I've seen before. What I'm worried about is the WP:LASTING the topic is going to get. It's very likely that the article is going to stay with this stub-like form for a long time (if all of the sources here is absolutely everything you can find). I didn't do a full deep-dive on the sources, but I appreciate all your efforts to improve and keep this article. It's not everyday a chicken nugget gets its own Wikipedia article. Sparkl^talk 22:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't everything I could find, there's stuff like a second Kotaku source, a Game Informer source, a GamePro source, and a Shacknews source, among others (there is even a Food Network source if it's deemed reliable, lol, and Los Angeles Times even mentioned it while just talking about chicken nuggets in general). There isn't much more to say about the auction itself (how could there be), but there are some sources talking about it a while after the fact I could include (PCGamesN considered it an example of Among Us's impact, though there aren't a whole bunch more articles written that far after the sale), and I could always expand the article with more reception, but I don't think the length is that bad—shorter articles that are comprehensive are always better than longer articles filled with cruft—though there are plenty more sources I could look through (I mainly looked at video game-centric websites, but this reached into the Mainstream Media™). DecafPotato (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's slightly better, but not in terms of addressing my concerns for keeping the article. At the end of the day, the only thing that can be talked about in any detail is the origin, rise, and conspiracy theory. As a matter of fact, SOETERMANS makes a good point that this article is subject to WP:NOTNEWS, so I change my original opinion that this article isn't unencyclopedic.

My biggest concern is that there isn't anything to talk about. If this topic is truly something to have an article on, there needs to be more aspects of this topic. It is too one-dimensional of a topic right now to rightfully be anything other than a stub article. Also, concerns with WP:NOTNEWS (i.e. sources almost all coming from the same time period, meaning the chicken nugget doesn't have the cultural impact worth dedicating an entire article to) need to be addressed. I doubt this topic is much more than a short sensation. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

a) there's nothing wrong with a permastub, and bloating this article to absurdity (even with verifiable information from reliable sources), while it would make the article longer, would make it worse.

b) WP:NOTNEWS outlines four criteria. Criteria 1 is that an article does not contain original reporting, which this article does not. Criteria 2 has multiple sub-criteria: that the article is not written in news style (it is not), that the article has "enduring notability" (see below), that the article is not based on "routine coverage" (I find it hard to believe anything about this chicken nugget is "routine"), and that it does not give undue weight to breaking news reports (I do not believe it does). Criterion 3 and 4 are also clear; no one is trying to create a standalone article about the seller, and this isn't a biography.

c) To give the "does this topic have enduring notability" a longer response: I believe it does; per Arkansore and TheWrap, it's the most expensive chicken nugget (obscure, sure, but that fact was also recognized by Guinness this year); it spawned a QAnon-adjacent conspiracy theory surrounding the listing being a child sex trafficking front, which is unusual for a food item, to say the least. While that's not a lot (though references of it continue past the date, clearly being something that wasn't immediately forgotten about), it should be enough, and including all worthwhile information in another article would certainly be undue weight. DecafPotato (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

a) permastubs are not inherently wrong, but it is clearly wrong when it's about something like a meme. There is no reason to keep a permastub on something like this. An example of a permastub that should be kept is a species (maybe not, I'm not familiar with the consensus on species, my point still stands), because it's important to document it, as Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and should document such things. A meme/sensation being a permastub merely indicates we should remove it.

b) It does not have enduring notability

c) The conspiracy theory does not persist in any notable way, a very temporary conspiracy theory as no one is talking about it now, also a sensation (and if the conspiracy theory did have enduring notability, that would moreso support the creation of an article about the conspiracy theory than the chicken nugget, if anything). The GWR is very minor, Wikipedia is not a place to make an article for every single GWR in existence. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Although the article is less bloated, this still doesn't seem notable enough to be an article. Other users have pretty much explained all the reasons why better than I could at this point. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is more about the ebay listing and absurd price (as well as a conspiracy) than than it is about the connection to among us itself. It also passes notability guidelines, and serves as an article about a ridiculously priced food item better than it would as a mention in a video game article. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet every source listed mentions Among Us, and it's the only reason why it received attention in the first place. There's one source about the conspiracy. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

But the sources *themselves* don’t discuss Among Us—they discuss the nugget and the auction and it’s price and one discusses the conspiracy, and another discusses the seller’s perception of the situation. DecafPotato (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The article's subject may not be notable, but I don't think for this reason. A sports team is only notable because of the sport the team plays, and ever source about that team will mention the sport, yet sports teams can still be notable. Any discussion about the chicken nugget will inevitably mention Among Us, that's just inherently how the topic will be discussed. The sources that exist don't focus on the game, but rather the nugget. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. We are not Know Your Meme. There is no lasting significance here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Doesn't pass WP:LASTING. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 06:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Could you clarify on why? Arkansore (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Of course I can. There have been thousands of auctions of peculiar items bearing uncanny resemblance to something or someone, none of which have Wikipedia articles. What makes this any different? The fact that the item sold itself does not make it inherently notable. Another Trticle which doesn't pass LAShING is Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo, there's lots of 2nd party RS, but only over a couple of days. It will likTly be shot down in an AfD soon. e whole "conspiracy" section is just a fat load of a shit honestly, if readers want gossip then know your meme is just down the road. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Are there really "thousands" of items sold at this high of a price with this high of media attention? The only one I can think of is the Harambe Cheeto (which has a very obvious legacy as the thing that inspired the Among Us chicken nugget auction), but that didn't receive as much media attention. DecafPotato (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, that's the thing. That tech and/or video game focused websites (and reliable sources) like CNET, GamesRadar+, GameSpot, IGN, The Verge, Kotaku, Polygon, PC Gamer, PCGamesN, Nintendo Life, Game Informer and TheWrap reported on the chicken nugget is only because of Among Us. They also said the same thing around the same time, lacking WP:LASTING. See WP:EVENTCRIT No. 4 too, "Routine kinds of news events (including [...] "shock" news [...] viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." The Guinness record is not enough. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just because these tech and/or video game sources reported on the chicken nugget due to its connection to Among Us does not solely make the article worthy of being included in the Among Us article. It still has individual notability not only through the Guinness record, but also through its pareidolic appearance and extraordinary price and absurd listing generating widespread online attention. The conspiracy theory, even if it was only reported on by Rolling Stone, still counts to its individual notability. This should be enough for the "additional enduring significance" that is required by WP:EVENTCRIT. The aforementioned features also make it not count as a "news event", as the nugget's significance is derived through means other than the nugget being sold for its high price (the supposed event) and would not be applicable for being tested against EVENTCRIT either way. Arkansore (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also: Vox, the Guardian, BBC, CNET etc. reported on the nugget as well, so it's not as if solely video game sites reported on the nugget. Arkansore (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't actually proven any lasting significance. The most lasting significance is the GWR. The "extraordinary price" and "absurd listing" doesn't actually mean or say anything, and is irrelevant to the discussion of notability. If the conspiracy theory had lasting significance (which it didn't), then that would only be a supporting reason to make an article on the conspiracy theory, not the chicken nugget (i.e., the chicken nugget wouldn't be notable in of itself, only relative to the actually notable conspiracy theory). It generated widespread online attention for extremely short periods of time (when the auction was happening, and when the conspiracy theory was happening), which makes it nothing more than a sensation. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Took the words right out of my mouth. Spot on mate TheGEICOgecko. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a huge fan of Valnet, but post-August 2020 TheGamer articles are considered reliable (per WP:VG/RS), so this source showing a partnership to launch an Among Us nugget into space in October 2022 added by @ReneeWrites is a lasting significance of the listing, as it's a thing caused by the listing covered by reliable sources that is far after the listing. DecafPotato (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The entire thing is the event. That this weird thing happened is a textbook case of viral phenomena. It happened, everybody talked about it for a couple of days and everybody forgot about it (except Guinness). Again, of the sources listed, one is not about the nuggettwo aren't about the nugget ("The Team Behind 'Among Us' Is Building Better Communities" and ("BTS McDonald's meal sauces and packaging are selling for more than double the sale price on eBay as fans race to collect the limited-edition collab") of the resting 19, 17 20, 17 were published in early June of 2021. How is that WP:LASTING? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wired source does mention the nugget, though, and just last year, as well. It refers to it as a "forever immortaliz[ation]", which seems like a WP:LASTING significance, no? DecafPotato (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. That one source and line doesn't convince me I'm afraid. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per X750. OceanHok (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Di. Feels more appropriate to be merged into BTS Meal than Among Us. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think it shouldn't be merged into Among Us? I'm not arguing against it being included in BTS Meal, but I also think it is appropriate to include in Among Us, since it is about the cultural impact of the game (via chicken nugget). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose however the article should be deleted. It is not notable, yes it received coverage and based on "reliable sources" but there are hundreds of examples of items that sold on eBay for a very high price which don't have their own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B67:A8BA:0:ED4C:925A:D677:71BE (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the proposal. Clearly it's mentioned by reliable sources, the question is whether or not it meets standalone notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, merging usually means the content will be cut down and eventually removed, and I think this article is written well enough and the topic received enough standalone coverage to not deserve that fate. I would support a wider article on the cultural impact of Among Us that this could be merged into, the 'Memes' section in the main article barely covers it, just sus alone would probably deserve an article. --jonas (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean, Jonas1015119, "eventually removed"? That's not the goal here. Where did you see that happen? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I know its not the goal, but I've certainly seen it happen multiple times. This article is way too long to just paste it into the Among Us article, so it will have to be shortened significantly. Then in the future someone is gonna shorten it even more because it takes up too much space in the main article, usually citing undue weight. After that someone will eventually remove the remaining section because its just a paragraph that doesnt properly establish why this incident is notable at all. At least thats how it tends to go in my experience, merging in the long run almost always leads to a significant loss of information and does not improve either article. --jonas (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? That's not what supposed to happen in a merge. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Merging it in to Among Us and keeping all of the important information as reflected in reliable sources would be the pinnacle of undue weight. WP:SIZESPLITs are certainly a thing (the Among Us article is long already), and this article has notability on its own. DecafPotato (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think what you have said should be done? You've only said what should be done, not why it should be done. Also, if a merge eventually gets removed, their should be a reasonale justification. If there isn't reasonable justification, then the problem is the removal, not the merge. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support. This isint a meme wiki, although the article might be notable. It doesnt have a point on wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi HelpingWorld, you seem to be contradicting yourself. If you think the article is notable, it does have a point on Wikipedia, right? Are you missing a word somewhere? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Memes are no different than other things when it comes to being included in Wikipedia—the article just needs to possess standalone notability. DecafPotato (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@DecafPotato and @soetermans. Not every meme has to have an article, this event was just a quick meme and I dont think it should have its own article.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Red-tailed Hawk. Here, this information is contextless trivia. Without prior knowledge, I have no clue why the confluence of BTS, Among Us, and Szechuan Sauce would amount to a $100,000 internet auction. But the more background information you include here, the more you're reproducing large sections of those other articles. It is better to merge to an article that can lend the proper context and present the information in a more streamlined way. Also, Guinness World Records do not confer notability per WP:RS/P. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this is is noteworthy enough to have its own article, there is no real reason that this page be merged with another just because it doesn't sound serious. HIPPOCLIDES (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi HIPPOCLIDES, having actively participated in this discussion I can say that people who are in favor of merging haven't said such a thing. If you're opposing, you don't have to refute non-existing arguments. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Most of the people that say that Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme have a good point for supporting the merge that it should me merged into Among Us, but it fulfils WP:Notability in my opinion, as there are lots of sources. So maybe “pre-merge” the article into Among Us and see what happens and also add it into list of internet phenomena. Brachy0008 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Brachy0008, what do you mean by "pre-merge"? DecafPotato (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

like merge the article into among us and still have the article here standing Soulware2 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

yeah HIPPOCLIDES (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Notable, and does not fit well into the article on Among Us. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - a notable chicken nugget? No. It doesn't even deserve more than a sentence or two in the merge. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it not notable? Why does it not deserve more than a sentence or two?Arkansore (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Internet Phenomena or preferably Delete Just because sources give attention to something does not mean that it has any WP:LASTING value, nor do I have to mention the oft-ignored WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something meets the GNG does not mean that it will be important down the line. The value that a piece of food sold for is something that can easily be replicated in the future, and attention around absurd auction listings is routine to the point of banality. I find the arguments around the guideline of notability to be weak, while ignoring that the subject will likely fail the WP:10Y test, and the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an endless repository of memes that quickly fade out of the news cycle. The Night Watch (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Merge alternate target Doesn't quite work in the main Among Us article but would make so much more sense in BTS Meal as it was found in one of those. The brief summary in the Among Us article works and then it could have a more detailed description as part of the BTS Meal article, but less detailed than the current article. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Well, this discussion has gone on for a long time and everyone has made some very good points, I still want to merge this article for the reasons given by many other contributors above: Just because this could meet WP:GNG, that is the bare minimum requirement and doesn't mean that it should be an article. The article also doesn't appear to meet WP:LASTING or WP:NOTNEWS. On top of that, I think Axem Titanium made a great point about how the average reader will need to have an understanding of the BTS Meal, Among Us, and other online phenomena and memes in order to understand the subject of this article, and you can't expect the average reader to know all that. Including that necessary background information would then make this article bloated and repeat information found on other articles. That is why I still stand by my assertion that this article is better off being merged into the article on Among Us and/or online phenomena and unusual eBay listings. Now, I'm an inexperienced editor, and this isn't my main area of focus, so I won't attempt to merge this article myself. The discussion is still open, and as of right now there are only slighly more people supporting it than opposing it, so I don't think the consensus is broad enough anyway. I just hope we can continue this discussion so it doesn't die and go nowhere before it can be properly closed and a decision can be made eventually. Derpytoucan (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the biggest problem with the "support"s is that there isn't a clear merge target: BTS Meal, Among Us, List of internet phenomena and Unusual eBay listings have all been thrown around as potential targets. I did put in a request for the discussion to be formally closed, however. DecafPotato (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

why does this even exist

this is not even notable Soulware2 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided are (mostly) reliable and discuss the subject in detail--thus it passes WP:GNG. DecafPotato (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the Guinness World record was the sole reason why this thing got an exclusive article. Mhatopzz (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

we have a better place to talk above this Soulware2 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This should stay (but if you do merge it..)

here me out, so yeah its kind of stupid and wikipedia is a serious place but cmon man its funny that it has its own article, if it gets merged into the Among Us page its gonna be dumb. TLDR: In short, if youre gonna merge this into an article atleast merge it into Unusual Ebay Listings 92.40.215.188 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers whatever reliable sources cover, no matter if it's considered stupid, dumb, offensive, sexy, obnoxious, exciting, etc. That you think WP:ITSFUNNY isn't a reason to delete, keep or merge. And there's nothing wrong with mentioning it in two articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

someone that agrees with me! (but it can be merged into both it doesn't really matter) Soulware2 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reason that isn't "WP:ITSFUNNY to have this be an article", there's a discussion on this exact page right above this one DecafPotato (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• While I agree that it being funny makes it worth it, policy is policy. However, I do have a valid reason. Every time an article is merged, its content is squashed to a few sentences at best. This article has enough sources and details that it can stand by itself, in my opinion. --2600:1700:9190:2EE0:0:0:0:D (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  (there's an ongoing discussion on this page; please give your thoughts on the matter there). DecafPotato (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  
  

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been more than half a month since the discussion was closed. And there's no further discussion on merge target. So merging into Unusual eBay listings. Soni (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)