Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benji Krol: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Comment.
Line 19: Line 19:
:::::::Clearly we are discussing notability in Wikipedia terms here! [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Clearly we are discussing notability in Wikipedia terms here! [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': very weak sourcing and major [[WP:BLP]] problems. Restricting attention to the best available sources give us a [[WP:BLP1E]] situation at best. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': very weak sourcing and major [[WP:BLP]] problems. Restricting attention to the best available sources give us a [[WP:BLP1E]] situation at best. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I've made an effort to remove the poorly sourced content, including the removal of non-notable names who were accused of crimes, editorializing, original research, and content sourced from user-generated content. The only reliable sourcing that would establish notability for Krol is about allegations of child sexual misconduct. As it stands, the article is dangerously close to becoming an [[WP:ATTACK]] page. I think this AfD should be withdrawn and the article [[WP:G10]]'d. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:21, 9 August 2024

Benji Krol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of TikTok followers has absolutely no influence on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your assertion that TikTok follower count has no bearing on notability, it’s all in perspective, for you someone could have no notability in your eyes. But in someone’s else’s yes. While follower count alone does not define notability in its entirety, it can significantly contribute to a person’s influence and public recognition. For example, individuals like Charli D’Amelio have used her substantial TikTok followings to build successful careers, attract media attention, and secure partnerships with major brands.
Follower count serves as a metric for reach and impact, both of which are essential elements of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not...please read WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are, not in it’s entirely but they are. Someone can have notability without follower and can also have with it. Meio2934 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you are saying whatsoever, but follower do count as a form of notability. Not enough for a Wikipedia page but it is a form of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we are discussing notability in Wikipedia terms here! Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: very weak sourcing and major WP:BLP problems. Restricting attention to the best available sources give us a WP:BLP1E situation at best. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've made an effort to remove the poorly sourced content, including the removal of non-notable names who were accused of crimes, editorializing, original research, and content sourced from user-generated content. The only reliable sourcing that would establish notability for Krol is about allegations of child sexual misconduct. As it stands, the article is dangerously close to becoming an WP:ATTACK page. I think this AfD should be withdrawn and the article WP:G10'd. Svampesky (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]