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 deleted as blatant hoax‎. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles (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)

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my life depends on this article staying i will suffer if you delete google giggles wikipedia page 89.64.44.164 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: topic of discussion with significant coverage in several WP:RS, meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Lordralf (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No 208.75.175.44 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this is notable enough online to keep. Especially as long as short form content platforms exist online. Limedin32 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment - would like to note these keep votes are mostly new users with less than 10 edits. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ASAP. This is a confirmed hoax, most of the sources have nothing to do with the purported subject and the few that do not, at a glance, provide the overwhelming SIGCOV I'd need to see to convince me that keeping this mess of an article is worth it. In essence a TNT, I guess. Toadspike [Talk] 20:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  dont you DARE say that again about my google giggles. This articles death will mean a failing for the good people of wikipedia Slivcommique (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not quite a hoax, but as a meme it doesn't actually have any secondary coverage that I can see. (KnowYourMeme isn't a reliable source.) It's certainly not any kind of Google product. The sources seem to have been generated by searching for "Google" and "giggles" and while you can find plenty of funny headlines related to the Queen or the Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson movie about Google, there's nothing here beyond a KYM page, a random French podcast, and a now-defunct webpage (almost certainly taken down as a copyright infringement on Google) created by a globally blacklisted viral marketing agency (media-bb-dot-com, which I can't even link in this !vote). Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My source analysis came to the same conclusions as yours, thanks for the more detailed explanation. This is only a "hoax" in the real-world sense, in that there isn't actually a product with this name. It is not a "hoax" in the Wikipedia sense, since there actually is a meme-hoax that could potentially be notable (but isn't). Toadspike [Talk] 14:12, 18 April 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.