Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ the Redeemer selfie

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Redeemer selfie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last year, a selfie took atop the Christ the Redeemer statue went viral, earning the photo a "UK Social Media Communications Award." Due to the viral-ness of it, there are plenty of sources, but I'm questioning the lasting notability of this event. Thus, I'm taking the issue here to get some feedback and consideration. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is just one event, but the world wide attention probably makes it notable. Borock (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An WP:ATD would be to merge this to Christ the Redeemer (statue). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone develops this article beyond a short stub, there's no reason not to have it merged with Christ the Redeemer (statue). Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be merged there? Is there an appropriate place where this material could be at that article? -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content would be suitable in a new "In popular culture" section in the Christ the Redeemer (statue) article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of WP:IPC, it just seems like glorified trivia to me. However, if that's the consensus, I'll go along with it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in mainstream/international news sources, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], so it passes WP:GNG. Sure, this could be merged, but the article would need to be retained in order to do so, and again, the topic is independently notable. Also, the article is about the photograph, how the photograph went viral, and also how the photograph was acquired, so I don't feel that WP:EVENT applies in a primary manner toward the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – with reference to WP:DOGBITESMAN, I would consider an internet phenomenon which goes "overnight viral" then is promptly forgotten to be the internet version of an "And finally" story. That it later won some relatively unknown social media award lends no additional weight to its notability. And I agree with Tavix that it wouldn't be suitable to put this anywhere in the Christ the Redeemer (statue) article, and that even if there were an IPC section it would be a very low value bullet point on that list – therefore I'd delete the content outright rather than merge it. Aspirex (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though notability is not temporary, let's take a look and see if there is indeed lasting coverage. There is. The Huffington Post = over one year later. CNN, also about one year later. The Daily Telegraph, over one year later. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "coverage", Cirt? I can't speak about the HuffPo page (my browser refuses to play its video), but the CNN page includes a total of one sentence about this, as does the Telegraph article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, above, WP:NEVER applies here. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what WP:NEVER currently tells us: A single event that receives coverage only for a short period of time and never again is usually not notable (though there are exceptions to the rule). If there is significant coverage for a long period of time, and the subject becomes a permanent fixture on at least some notable members of society, the subject is more likely to be notable. It seems to me that part of this suggests disagreement with you (unless a single sentence within each of two articles of moderate length constitutes "significant coverage") and part of it is gibberish. (Who are "notable members of society", and what does it mean for something to become "a permanent fixture on" such people?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete per Aspirex or redirect somewhere. That somewhere might be a trivia section of Christ the Redeemer (statue), or List of selfies or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet ephemera. As shown above, coverage that goes beyond the moment is limited to passing mentions. We could likewise briefly mention it somewhere appropriate, but not at the article level. Sandstein 19:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Belongs in tabloids, not an encyclopedia. Other "selfie" articles such as Monkey selfie are suitable because they raise concerns or otherwise have an effect, but this selfie is covered mostly because there are not enough stories to meet the quota. Esquivalience ^t 20:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone remember the dim distant past where we didn't have "selfies"? Yes, believe it or not, the wikipedia article selfie was only created 2.5 years ago, April 2013. Now this particular selfie falls far short of Tourist guy, but Cirt makes the best comment for keeping, i.e., subsequent mentions of the picture months after the original. But how are we to find this in future years? Is a List of notable selfies even feasible?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list of Wikipedia lists suggests that yes it's feasible. Indeed, I can easily imagine List of notable selfies taken atop tall structures, List of notable selfies of Kim Kardashian, List of notable selfie stick incidents, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying i want this but .... List of selfie-related injuries and deaths. haha.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterise "subsequent mentions" as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, though. I agree with Hoary that those brief subsequent mentions linked to aren't enough. Aspirex (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of the latest viral internet meme. If you need a policy to point to, try WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A selfie going viral is encyclopedic? When will people realize that not everything that makes it to the newspapers and / or internet is encyclopedic. I don't see any reason for this article to exist. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:16, 24 October 2015 (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.