Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instagram egg


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp  💬  15:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Instagram egg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At the previous nomination, many users argued that the claim that this will not be significant in the future is a violation of WP:RAPID. Well, it's been more than a year, and the topic has shown to lack the significant coverage necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. A Google search limited to only results from the last year brings up links to Instagram posts and opinion pieces on personal blogs, with nearly nothing else.  Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC) + minor edit -- Puzzledvegetable  Is it teatime already?  14:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Puzzledvegetable  Is it teatime already?  13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep A brief look at the sources on this article shows that this got a lot of coverage (Variety, Fox, Washington Post, Time Magazine, New York Times, the list goes on) and was mentioned in an academic paper. Notability isn't temporary. If a subject has been notable at any point in time, it remains notable. Yes, the coverage was mostly over a 2 month period (Jan-Feb 2019), but the same could be said for almost any piece of media. Besides, there are still articles being written about it today, like this article a mere 5 days ago, which shows that it does have enduring notability. Separate to any guideline, I think that any piece of media that got nearly 55 million people to respond to it should have a place in an encyclopedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While notability is not temporary, I believe WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED are applicable here. The only sources that have spoken about this of late are tabloids and the like, not the the type of material that generally satisfies WP:RS. Although, I was unaware of the academic paper. I had initially searched for such a paper on Google Scholar, but the results page did not include any papers written about the subject itself. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: An academic talked about it on the website of a university: but it wasn't actually in a paper minus one rather unsubstantial paragraph from the Kyiv  National  University. However, I think that the fact articles on this subject are still being written up to 5 days ago when this happened in late 2018-early 2019 shows that it has received sustained coverage.  AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that record-breaking events are guaranteed to get some continuing coverage, even if it's "X became the most-liked post ever, unseating the Instagram egg from three years ago", the way that coverage referenced in this article mentions that the egg beat Kylie Jenner's record. That keeps this content relevant for the future. Even without that, coverage in The New York Times, Forbes and Time would be enough to demonstrate notability anyway. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:NEXIST. It has received a lot of coverage, per reasons above. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.