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.
Keep: Poorly sourced as in The New York Times, Forbes and Business Insider? I don't get where you're coming from. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Nkon21: While I agree the article should be kept, Forbes articles written by "contributors" such as the one cited are unreliable, and Business Insider is listed as situational and is currently undergoing another RfC.
SK2242 (
talk) 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The article is properly sourced and there has been significant coverage of the group, also many of the members are notable.
JayJayWhat did I do? 05:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep I was in the belief that when a given topic (whatever the topic is) was covered by the New York Times and Forbes, then it was notable. We need to change our guidelines about notability if it's not the case anymore. --
Deansfa (
talk) 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. The article is reliably sourced and clearly demonstrates its subject's notability. (See
WP:GNG.) --
Moscow Connection (
talk) 13:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete A house where internet-famous children film their TikTok videos does not meet
WP:NBUILDING.
KidAdtalk 00:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
KidAd: The article is about the group, not the house, and me and others have clearly demonstrated it meets GNG.
SK2242 (
talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (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.