Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instagram face

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. Article has changed, discussion has clear direction and no "deleters". (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face[edit]

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

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

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, Medicine, Technology, and Internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [1] and [2], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is a topic. [3] [4] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Thriley. 12u (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For clearing up the remaining issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues that cannot be fixed through normal editing? If we send it to draft it risks being pruned after inactivity which would amount to backdoor deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources news search at the top and you'll see plenty of reliable sources give this significant coverage. https://www.wired.com/story/goopcore-body-horror-age-of-instagram-face/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5c237a34-7a47-4deb-a5b4-a23e77cc88f7 etc. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those editors arguing for Draftification and those advocating Keep as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've drafted a rewrite using 6 reliable sources including those mentioned in this discussion. It's now two paragraphs with a clear scope. The sources cover a span of about 6 years. I've used named references and welcome other editors to expand where appropriate, especially Lfstevens. @Oaktree b, Samoht27, and ArvindPalaskar: you all voted draftify, does it still seem too far off the mark or is this an acceptable start? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is enough to make this page a safe Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems properly verifiable and is now sourced fairly well; notable topic with interest from major publications. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the article has been improved since the nomination, which moots out the "draftify" into purgatory !votes. There are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for the original nomination, i see the only valid ground of the nomination would have been whether the subject was "unverifiable," but it is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on present citations and also additional coverage exists which I have added: The Zoe Report and Tablet Magazine.Hkkingg (talk) 07:52, 1 June 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.