Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@world record egg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. I will attempt to summarize the two opposing arguments, neither of which have consensus, in my view.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this means that there are some topics which may be "newsworthy" but not "encyclopedia-worthy". Although this topic has received a significant amount of coverage in newspapers, that does not necessarily imply that the topic must be suitable for an encyclopedia (note: the WP:N lead states that an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT). Instead, to determine encyclopedic notability, we look at things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage, and many editors have claimed that this topic lacks those aspects needed for encyclopedic notability.
However, as other editors have pointed out, it is difficult to determine things like lasting significance and persistence of coverage soon after an event has occurred because insufficient time has passed; often, the most we can do is speculate. Many editors pointed to the wealth of news coverage this has received as a reason for keeping the article (i.e. satisfying WP:GNG) and as evidence of broader significance within the history of the Internet. Mz7 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@world_record_egg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

@world_record_egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This occurrence has no enduring notability whatsoever. At best it should be a single line somewhere in the instagram article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • KEEP: I understand many editors proclaim to be a "troll" or "insignificant." However, it has set many records and has many accolaids. Instagram does not own, @world_record_egg, so having it under Instagram is taking away the success or the appreciation for the egg itself. If you just set the like record post for your IG post, would you wan't it under Instagram. The egg is a person and has it's own shop, verified check, and anything else it may need to have it's seperate article. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupaDudz (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — SupaDudz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep - It is the most liked online post ever. It has broken numerous records. It has generated significant media coverage. As obscure as the nature of the article is, this is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs)
Why exactly, Greenleader(2), can this 2-line "article" not be incorporated as a factette in the Instagram article. Why exactly does it need its own article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve got to be kidding. Trillfendi (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect on the condition that there is truly extensive information about the egg on the wiki most liked insta page. No I was not joking, and the lack of arguments about notability shows that instead of the argument being about the coverage and significance of the page, instead editors have chosen to talk about the content of the page as a justifiable means for deletion. As ridiculous as it looks, it has broken numerous records; over 33 million as of typing this have liked the post! I would personally hope that there can be a page on this in the future, however accept the consensus is instead for an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is predicated on the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. You possibly missed that bit. The consensus is not for "an extensive section about the egg on the most liked insta post wiki page". The consensus is merely get rid of this stupid article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resupporting keep and reverting the decision to redirect as opposed to my original points for keep. The subject of the article even now is still recieving media coverage, and appears to be perfectly in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest to sceptics that you check out Wiki's list of unusual articles; all valid pages but are a bit out of the ordinary, however nevertheless are just as deserving of having a page as some famous politician or celebrity. Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other AfD (which concerned the Instagram account behind the post) was closed with a speedy delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the significant coverage in the media as well as the fact it has the most likes ever on an Internet post means it has passed the basic notability guidelines? Greenleader(2) (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The egg post has accrued a significant amount of coverage in WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS - this has no enduring notability; there is no hope that this will be able to have significant expansion. Should just be mentioned in the Instagram article. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the egg has accrued significant coverage in a large number of reliable sources. Will normally WP:NOTNEWS (which is not a fleshed-out policy but rather part of WP:NOT) could be used to discount an article's notability, the fact the egg post is the most liked post in the history of the internet is a clear claim to significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SamHolt6, but it is not! It is second to "Despacito".-- Flooded with them hundreds 22:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flooded with them hundreds: the egg passed "Despacito" in likes earlier on 14 Jan. This is pending a WP:RS to confirm, of course. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SamHolt6, Yes, you're right! I completely missed it because few days ago some bumbling fans were discussing how the song still had higher likes.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, by virtue of that bit at the top of the page that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." This article is a text-book example of what wikipedia is not. Per my question to another keeper: exactly why can this not be covered adaquately in an instagram article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is a policy shortcut under the WP:NOT umbrella, but this is semantical; it remains policy. I think however that this topic is one of the exceptions (NOTNEWS throws the caveat usually in its text) given the claim to significance the article has. As for the WP:PAGEDECIDE inquest, I am of the view that the topic should remain a separate stub or start class article (which PAGEDECIDE alots for) on the basis of the sheer amount of coverage received.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StraussInTheHouse: Evidently you’re unaware of Egg Gang. How many more “world record egg” pages will keep being created for this viral trend if we don’t get a handle on it?
  • Keep: While there are good arguements on both sides, I do think this article should remain in Wikipedia. While its topic is rather strange, it has become the most liked post/content on any social media platform, which is noteworthy. However, this article does need some cleanup and extension. This is not really the fault of any editor, this is simply because it has not had time to fully develop as a topic. However, if the topic does not further develop, or more contests like this appear it should be deleted. Also: I have been heard that there are multiple pages on this topic, I hope that they can be merged. AceTankCommander (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The inclusion test for Wikipedia content is not just whether it's on the pop culture radar today — to warrant a Wikipedia article, what would have to be shown is a substantive reason why this would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. That is, the question that needs to be answered, to make this notable enough for its own article, is why will people still care about it in 2029? Wikipedia's supposed to be about stuff that matters. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Bearcat says. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the "Ten-year test" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The use of this "thought experiment" test is not required to warrant a Wikipedia article whatsoever. North America1000 16:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 15. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The decision to delete a page should not be decided by a small group's personal opinions about social media not being "real news." The account is clearly noteworthy, as a holder of at least three world records. Furthermore, it has been covered by the media hundreds of times by now, and it is very likely that it will continue to accrue significance as time continues. As to the argument that it should only be listed on the List of Most Liked posts page, I would argue that the account and its world record post should NOT be merged, as there is easily more to say about the account than a single number listing how many likes its post has. Grumpig (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Grumpig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DELETE IT!!! This is the 2nd page in one day about this egg account that has come across the AfD over this. We don’t need one page of this let alone two. The first page should have been merged or redirected to the List of Instagram records. “I started a joke” is not notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that has now been deleted. "This similar article has been nominated for deletion" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion.  Nixinova  T  C  06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nixinova: It was literally the same, exact article with a different name. It wasn’t just a “similar” article. Wikipedia doesn’t allow two articles of one thing. Use your brain. Trillfendi (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable world record, and ample coverage in reliable sources about it. Dream Focus 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 04:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable for being the most.liked thing online and has even been picked up by the GWR. The arguments about duplication are irrelevant as those articles have been deleted and this is the only article about the topic now.  Nixinova  T  C  06:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Merge into List of most-liked Instagram posts. CookieMonster755✉ 06:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep. This is, alas, currently notable. In a few months I believe this decision should be reviewed, and we can decide then whether with the benefit of hindsight the "event" does or does not meet the criteria of being included on Wikipedia, but until then WP:DONTBEHASTY. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing on Wikipedia as "temporarily notable pending the need for future hindsight, just because it happens to currently be in the news" — either a thing has already attained enough notability to satisfy the ten-year test for permanent notability, or it's not notable enough for an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's making any predictions. What has to be shown, to qualify it for a Wikipedia article, is that it has already achieved something that already passes the ten-year test — it's not enough to say that we don't know that it won't still be a topic of interest in 2029, because that's not where the burden of proof lies: the burden of proof lies on showing that it will still be a topic of interest in 2029. And current "world record" status doesn't prove that, because the nature of social media is that this could easily have its record outdone three months from now and thus become a forgotten footnote to history by July. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this will endure, not on anybody to prove that it won't. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gaze into me, and engage in the ten-year test thought experiment
That WP:10 year test is oh so subjective, and requires forming subjective, speculative predictions. Furthermore, there's also a section there that begins with, "Just wait and see." Lastly, it says right atop the page, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." This subjective test is in no way required to qualify an article, nor should it be. North America1000 16:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the "wait and see" isn't about "keep the article pending future evidence that it hasn't endured", it's about "wait until you can show that enduring significance has emerged before you start the article at all". Secondly, per WP:ONLYESSAY, we have policies in place to tell us what to do, and guidelines to tell us how we've decided our best practices for actually doing policies work in actual practice — so essays are still every bit as binding as policies are, in the absence of a really compelling reason to make a special exception to them. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uses sources like any other Wikipedia article would. Though it is a bit silly, and certainly an internet meme, this hasn't stopped well sourced articles like this from having existed before, especially as popular as this one is. If this can't be on Wikipedia, why can Nyan Cat? Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one thing, there was actually a legal dispute over Nyan Cat, making that topic significant in a way that this one has not yet become. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nearly A Baker's dozen (speaking of eggs, see egg crate) WP:RS established that WP:GNG is met. That it is an Internet meme, which I don't care about, does not make it so devoid of worth that it should be deleted.
The merge proposal is a diversion and a Canard. Those articles have been deleted already.
No doubt the article will be renamed. But that is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I don't think we should start a precedent of giving every internet sensation a page. This is not Ellen. Every internet sensation gets coverage in RS, that is why it is a sensation. But they inevitably fade away. This is also the first precedent I know of for making a page for a social media ACCOUNT. The article is not about the person behind it or the sensation that it got likes, but about the page itself. I just don't think this is what WP is for, ultimately. Anyway, that's all I have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cid, el campeador (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangest !vote I've made to an AfD discussion, but Change the subject of the article, possibly by Move to something like "Instagram egg post" or something similar. I do believe the subject is notable, even if passing, but it doesn't focus on the right subject, as it should probably be about the post, and not the less-notable account that created the post. SemiHypercube 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Instagram egg post per SemiHypercube, if kept, which I have no opinion on. — CoolSkittle (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The move discussion is at Talk:@world_record_egg#Requested_move_15_January_2019, not here. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Change the subject of the article to that of the egg itself. It has received coverage from various publications such as CNN or Time. MikeOwen discuss 22:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is clearly Wikipedia page-deserving due to the fact that it details the most liked post on Internet history, a clearly encyclopedic topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutterwikipedia1230 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia. This article shouldn't be on Wikipedia in my opinion; it's not a suitable place for it. Ben5218 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, as it's well-sourced and has received a massive amount of coverage, but move per the RM on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/21 02:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recently came upon this review [3] of the egg in Artnet. The review (while being an opinion piece) is art critic Ben Davis' take on the egg post and the trend of art in the wider internet-fueled culture. It is fairly different from other news stories concerning the egg in recent days.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG:
  • Thorne, Dan (14 January 2019). "Egg photo breaks Kylie Jenner's record for most liked image on Instagram". Guinness World Records. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
  • France, Lisa Respers (14 January 2019). "Meet the egg that broke Kylie Jenner's Instagram record". CNN. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  • Hugh McIntyre (August 9, 2017). "Here Are All The Records 'Despacito' Broke On YouTube". Forbes. Retrieved 14 January 2019. (struck 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Ohlhieser, Abby (14 January 2019). "Congratulations to this egg on becoming Instagram's most-liked post ever". Washington Post. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  • "Egg Photo Bests Kylie Jenner for Most Popular Instagram Post". Time. Retrieved 14 January 2019.(added 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
Balkywrest (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: either i am missing something, or the Hugh McIntyre/9 August 2017 article doesn't mention the egg at all. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--Zorro naranjo (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Russian Wikipedia briefly kept it with reasonable rationing ("kept preliminary" for 3 months considering heavy social coverage). Russian Wikipedia was wise on the subject so let English Wikipedia, the most advanced one, be wise also. --ssr (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with ssr. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The egg's photographer has been interviewed [4], and there have been copycats [5]. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is exactly WP:NOTNEWS where a a bunch of media sources always cover recent internet trends of no lasting impact. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the present era of overhyped internet phenomena. Brandmeistertalk 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is absolutely no reason why this can't just be mentioned on List of most-liked Instagram posts or List of most-liked online posts and not made into an article. Once we start making articles for individual Instagram posts, where will it end? Sure, this one is the most liked, but what about the second most liked, or the third? What if a certain post is famous even if it doesn't hold a record? Where will we draw the line? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an utilitarian version of Reddit. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The egg is an internet phenomenon and a fascinating example of the way modern society can interact in the internet. While it is possible that the egg will fade into obscurity, the article can always be deleted in the future. If things like Despacito have an article, there's no reason that this shouldn’t. However, the name should probably be changed. Coyotedomino (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Practically everything is, or at least can be, an internet phenomenon. This is not a fascinating example of how modern society can interact in the internet. It's just a picture of an egg. Additionally, the argument: "We can always delete it later" is absurd. We can not simply create articles that lack notability, because one day it might be notable. If that day ever comes, it can be made then. If we start making articles about every internet anomaly, Wikipedia would be flooded with thousands of meaningless articles. Remember Youtube Rewind 2018? That was a little over a month ago. It's already completely out of the public eye. Lastly, you must admit that the comparison with Despacito is incredibly weak. That is a song, with a cast, crew, production team, budget, etc. It is a well defined entity, that exists independent of any specific platform. Many songs have entries even without the notability that Despacito had. This post, on the other hand, is nothing more than a picture on a social media website. It's entire existence is limited to a specific page on a specific website. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind? --NoCOBOL (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well there's no consensus here and there isn't going to be one. I count around 20 keeps and a few less deletes, nowhere close to unanimous. Close?  Nixinova  T  C  01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in waiting for an disinterested editor to close this by their own volition. Further, AfDs are not a head-count. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Garbage content and useless information. Yes, it’s my opinion. Bohbye (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No policy based reason given for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't there is a rule that requires reasons to be based on policy. Policies are non-binding anyway, so if a user feels that the information on a page is useless, that is just as valid as a policy saying so. They both have the same power if other users agree, and conversely, are both meaningless if other users don't agree. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Removed comment per below. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Puzzledvegetable: See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This exact argument is listed as one to avoid in deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-Edit conflict- Unneccessary comment on another user's vote. Whoever closes the AfD can weigh the value of votes themselves. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an interesting tidbit of internet lore, and the sources clearly are there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-liked Instagram posts. Its notability is mostly temporary; given a few weeks or months, something else is going to take its place. Risker (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will say that this does serve as a good record for how silly humanity can be in this social media age. Nevertheless, on policy grounds it does meet GNG so I will have to say keep on this (even though I think it does not reflect well on the people who were influenced to share it just because others told them to). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a artical with historical signifigance seeing it is not only the most-liked page on Instagram but in the entire Internet. --Epicneter (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the subject of the article to that of the post itself and not the account, which is notable as the most liked internet post. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Wikipedia bestrides a delicate balance between keep and delete. If this egg were to fall, it might never be put back together again, even with the help of all Wikipedia. -- GreenC 00:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References to children's fairy tales do not justify keeping an absurd article. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is worth being entered into Wikipedia for history purposes. I understand in a few years, It may not hold the world record but this has set a precedent for inanimate objects alike Laboj (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Laboj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Having it listed at List of most-liked Instagram posts is sufficient until lasting notability is established. Kaldari (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:RAPID. I checked Google, and news articles are still being published about the egg. These articles cover a lot of different aspects of the egg picture and its online fame (not just the fact that its the most liked Instagram post). This could just be a flash in the pan, but there is also currently evidence to suggest it may have some lasting impact. I think its best to wait a few months to make a determination of the egg's lasting significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Though this point wasn't mentioned, I think it's worth bringing up that this does not meet BLP1E – "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Yes, this is surely well documented and, as displayed by the name @world_record_egg, they did seek publicly with these actions.
Nomination is also of a current event that has attracted international attention. When the publicity dies down, maybe reconsider then? But for now, this should stay up.
Given the dozens of sources found on Google within minutes of starting a search, this passes GNG.
Seems to me that there is no reason to delete. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/@world_record_egg&oldid=1085497225"