The wikipedia article now says that it "was expected to disappear in the near future, probably around the year 2020, based upon rates of erosion data from 1994. Although, as of August 2020, a small part still remains visible during low tide." This video is listed as one of the sources.<br><br>Edit: A week and a day later, the article now says "Erosion rate data from 1994 suggested that this would happen around 2020. However, as of August 2020, two small sections of the island remain visible during low tide." and "In August 2020, YouTuber Tom Scott uploaded a video which confirmed the continued—albeit further eroded—existence of the island at low tide.",(reply>), @Ovni I believe ordinary Youtube videos are not citable on Wikipedia.,(reply>), @Oktay Yildirim Well yes, but it's only Original Research if Tom Scott posts it himself. If someone else posts it citing investigative journalist Tom Scott, it's perfectly fine.,(reply>), @Tejan Generally yes, but there should be exceptions made when Youtube actually is the source for something.,(reply>), @Tejan YT is not on Wikipedia's credible sources?  When did Wikipedia become a credible source?,(reply>), @whuzzzup - Yep. I edited the entry on my home town, and within minutes got challenged to state what the hell I was doing and why. I said I live in the effing place. Nope, not good enough. But if I dig up a second rate newspaper clip written by some random guy who has never been to our town, and cite that as a source, that is somehow OK.