Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OK Chlöe


 * 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 redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick. Tone 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK Chlöe

 * – ( View AfD View log )



User talk:Cairo2k18 has made this article proposed for deletion for reasons of his belief that The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article only has trivial mentions from a couple of reliable secondary sources. I personally Objected and would rather have this article be dicussed and voted on.--Bennyaha (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Pokelova (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - In other words, you think it should be kept, right? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what it means to oppose deletion, yes.--Pokelova (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , then the proper response would be "KEEP", not "OPPOSE" Donaldd23 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick Nine sources are in the article. The first is a link to the doco on you tube. The second is a donations page for the film. The third seems to be a promotional site for the film. The fourth is a guardian page, but it is just an embedded video of the film and a three sentence promotional blurb. The fifth is a reliable source, but is not about the film. The sixth is the guardian again and it has an embed of the doco, but the text doesn't seem to make any mention of it. The seventh has some commentary on the doco. The eighth is facebook...so no. The last one is similar to the seventh and these are the only decent sources available. There is not really enough here to justify its own article and it would be better presented at the Chlöe Swarbrick one, where it is already mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect I only found one citation []. Needs more than that, and nothing cited in the article now is good enough to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick - Definitely lacks notability as far as I’m concerned. but a redirect to the main person’s page sounds reasonable. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect It doesn't meet WP:NFILM but can have its own section under the Chlöe Swarbrick page. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect As Aircorn notes, there is no substantial independent coverage. Even the citation found by Donaldd23 does not appear independent. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chlöe Swarbrick, but needs severe editing. "The reply made Swarbrick go viral." Maybe the comment went viral, not Swarbrick. Moriori (talk)


 * 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.