Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalani Hilliker


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Kalani Hilliker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A majority of this page is completely unsourced and half of the actual sources are the subject's own youtube page. I do not think this page meets wikipedia's notability standards and should be removed. Apathyash (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep by a quick Google search, you will see her notability is shown by significant coverage in RS, Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BASIC notability. Per WP:BI, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Insider, and the 2020 coverage noted above does not appear to have much depth beyond what she posted to social media and the reaction of others to it; the event is also covered by WP:NEWSWEEK (described at WP:RSP as now "mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism"). I also found a one-paragraph blurb in a 2019 'where are they now' EOnline article, 2 sentences at the end of 'where are they now?' coverage from FOX News, and 2015 coverage of her role in Dance Moms, primarily based on her statements, in OK! Magazine. While the Woman's Day profile in the article is focused on her, it is written by an "editorial assistant" and carries the disclaimer: "Woman's Day participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites", so I question the independence of an article that appears to have affiliate links embedded in the names of products promoted in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The above comment mischaracterizes how publishing works on several counts. An editorial assistant is generally a full-time staff member on the editorial (i.e., not advertising) side of a publishing company, and there is no reason to regard them any differently than other staff without other evidence. The "affiliate marketing program" note refers to the practice of major news organizations (including The New York Times, New York Magazine, the Washington Post, etc.) inserting referral links to Amazon for items mentioned in news articles. While there are certainly ethical issues with this practice from a publishing standpoint, it is not the same as sponsored content, and at any rate any conflict of interest would involve Amazon and not the subject of an artist. I found an additional, substantial profile as well, which I am now adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This additional source appears to be WP:PROMOTION, because the publisher describes itself as "We help brands publish their catalogs online to deliver beautiful shoppable experiences" and "Online catalogs are easily distributed throughout your marketing channels. With Publitas Enterprise, these catalogs become interactive & shoppable. This enables you to easily share your brand’s shopping experience on online channels other than your online store." This therefore does not appear to be a reliable source that can support notability, and per policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)″
 * Comment: The publisher is more of a Scribd-type hosting platform, and it also hosts traditional magazines such as Frame. The magazine's website is here, and the content seems more or less as reliable as similar entertainment publications. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the additional information, but based on Unclear Magazine's self-description on the Contact page, "Unclear Magazine is a digital publication that highlights YOUR favorite creatives. Our goal is to provide you with unique conversations and beautiful images with the creatives you love. Mixed with a bit of opinion and creative writing, we know you’ll find what you are looking for at Unclear Magazine", this does not seem to indicate the editorial oversight and fact-checking needed for it to be considered a reliable WP:SOURCE. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC and doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I don't see any need for an article here.   scope_creep Talk  15:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.