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. It seems, given all of the sources shared in this discussion, that this subject has been adequately covered in reliable sources. User:Photos of Japan could you bring the sources you mention here into the article? I think it might discourage a quick repeat visit to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (trend) (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)

Contains little to no reliable sourcing and was created as part of a Wiki Education assignment. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage exists, across multiple major outlets across the world. That it was part of a Wiki Education assignment is entirely unrelated to notability; the fact we're getting articles for subjects that are probably of more interest to younger readers is a credit to that project. :JeffUK 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The onus would be on you to locate some of those sources and to ensure they are reliable. There's a Cosmopolitan article and a Glam article, but they aren't much. Ornov Ganguly TALK 14:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are clearly some sources available CBC News, Michigan Daily, Health digest . Honestly, I got burned trying to find more, clicked on some magazine that tried to install ALL the viruses on my laptop, so I'm letting this one lie for now! JeffUK 08:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The CBC and Michigan Daily articles are 404'd without Internet Archive backups. If the CBC one is what we already have in the article, it's passable, but the Health Digest one just summarizes the Refinery29 article. It's hardly four paragraphs long. The trouble with most of these sources is that they are trying to capitalise on a microtrend. There is no longevity here to make it deserving of an article. It would be better served as part of another article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 13:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think rather than for deletion, this could be moved into an Internet trends category. There are definitely credible sources that mention this and to suggest that it had a slew of articles and even mentioned in academic books only in a certain time frame would disqualify a lot of articles on Wikipedia. raisecain (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That specific discussion is happening here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_aesthetic Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There was a brief blast of coverage in 2021, with the CBC article in the article and this [1], [2]... I'm not showing any lasting effect of the "Trend". Could be briefly mentioned in an article about internet memes/trends in 2021 or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Popular culture, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Stylist (magazine) had an article mentioning that videos with the "that girl" tag got 2 billion views on Tiktok. More recently, I found a Her Campus article from this year titled Is “That Girl” Still a Trend? which states

The “that girl” trend transitioned into the “vanilla girl aesthetic” with warmer scents and colors. Some still refer to the clean aesthetic as a “that girl” aesthetic but “that girl” aesthetic branched into “vanilla girl aesthetic”, “baddie aesthetic”, the “night luxe aesthetic”, etc.

Which would seem to imply the trend has largely evaporated into subsequent trends. However they later state:

Recently, this trend has gotten a lot of heat for being a part of the larger trend of toxic productivity and “hustle culture”

Which would seem to imply that people are still talking about it. The section links to the Aesthetics wiki (no way to know how recent) and 2 year old Topix (website) article which criticizes it while also stating that it seems here to stay.

One TikTok trend that seems to be here to stay? “That Girl.” While on the surface it’s all about being your best self mentally, physically, and professionally, therapists say this idea is actually toxic—here’s why.

A UVU Review article this year compares it to the It girl trend.

Gotham (magazine) did an interview with TikToker Kaeli Mae where she stated:

Definitely the clean girl aesthetic. Even back when I started four years ago, it was referred to as like “That Girl” and they still refer to it as that, but I feel like the trend of “That Girl” or “Clean Girl” is always there. I think it will always be there. It just maybe has different names at some points, but it all revolves around the same aesthetic.

InStyle had an article this year about "clean girl" aesthetic which supports an unclear relationship to "that girl".

Maximal in regards to their career goals ("That Girl"), the clean girl is minimalist when it comes to beauty and fashion

Elle (India) has an article from this year that also ambiguously equivocates "clean girl" with "that girl".

The reason I support keeping the article is because it is part of a significant and enduring women's self-improvement and aesthetics trend that is ambiguously defined leaving no clear merge target. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here's the CBC article [3], for what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2024 (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.