Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water bottle flipping (2nd nomination)


 * 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 the consensus developed was for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Water bottle flipping
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

General consensus on talk page; was already tagged for notability issues (at least) once SteveCof00 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Article has potential and the sources are decent enough, but it needs more expansion. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability argument fails because the topic is well-covered in major media like the NYT. The consensus argument fails because the page got an exceptional number of views while it was on the main page – over 87K, which is a lot for DYK.  It even did better than the FA for that day, which only got 69K views.  With that level of interest, the topic is bound to attract a handful of nay-sayers but their number is tiny compared with the number of editors and readers who were fine with the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delay AFD for ~6 months The issue properly identified on the talk page is that of whether the coverage of this was a burst of coverage with no real tail, or if it has enduring notability, and we can't tell that for a few months at this point. It makes no sense to delete this at this point now, but we should review in a few months to see if the sourcing has continued to some degree. If it hasn't, then this was just a meme/viral video, and this can be merged to one of several possible targets. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I agree with Masem's cogent argument. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete Nothing but a fad that has already faded. Seriously. Do we need an article for every video that has over one million views on Youtube? -- Kndimov (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it generates enough media coverage to satisfy the notability requirements, why not? Buddy431 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. Note that Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While that is true, it needs a short period of enduring coverage to be considered to have significant coverage. A topic that is covered over a day or two, and then never mentioned again, is not considered enduring (and subsequently significant) coverage. A topic that has one or two days of intense coverage, and then has a handful of sources with significant coverage (more than just mention in passing) is at least somewhat enduring to start. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 9 November 2016 (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.