Ky Dickens (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)

I checked the first 26 sources for any sign of passing WP:NBASIC. Nothing. The sources are all either interviews, promotional press releases/churnalism, passing mentions (credits), or primary. Not convinced that this passes WP:NDIRECTOR either. Most of the Awards and recognition section are non-notable awards. Two of her films have articles, but notability isn't inherited. qcne (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. qcne (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it also before I did significant editing it was clear that it had been written by the subject herself 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:C79:3693:EC66:C21B (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes NDIRECTOR through Sole Survivor, Fish Out of Water and Zero Weeks (reviews here, here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck keep vote as WP:TNT applies. The subject is notable through NDIRECTOR but the article violates PROMO. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnoteworthy and largely written by the subject of the article without disclosure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kydickens Internetronic (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All edits by that account were immediately reverted (not that other edits to the article couldn't have been COI). Nardog (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Reddit post detailing why it should be deleted.Kaynbred 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I’m also skeptical as to whether the two films mentioned that do have articles even deserve them too 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:D083:FA22:6B14:99A1 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary reason this article is of note to me is that since late 2024, Dickens' primary claim to fame (notoriety?) has been The Telepathy Tapes, a podcast that I do not think I, as an autistic person, can talk about objectively.
I agree that WP:TNT would be the least circuitous route to a quality Biography, if some iteration of the article was permitted(?) to remain in the database.
Also, I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process § How does the deletion process work? correctly. The page was proposed for deletion on January 12, so if the vote to delete the page is unanimous (which of course it might not be), it could be deleted on the 19th. Is that correct? Thank you for your help!! Finalgirlfall (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Finalgirlfall, that's correct. On the 19th or 20th (usually), an uninvolved administrator will look at the discussion and determine if there is a consensus to close the discussion. If there's not, they'll relist the discussion for 1-3 additional weeks, checking in each week to see how the discussion has evolved. Otherwise, they'll close the discussion and take whatever the consensus action is (such as deleting the article). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Telepathy Tapes - I do think Dickens meets WP:NDIRECTOR as it is usually applied, but without good secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG I'm skeptical of maintaining this as its own article. (I'm not particularly concerned about WP:PROMO here; the article is short, and can be trivially reduced to a series of simple verifiable claims by removing the awards and recognitions section entirely and trimming Career.) I suspect that higher-quality profiles of Dickens are imminent, given the recent prominence of The Telepathy Tapes. This review in The Times, for example, contains a few substantive sentences on Dickens. A few more sources like that would lead me to vote Keep. For now, we're better off selectively merging info (a few sentences at most) about the host to The Telepathy Tapes. Suriname0 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose merge as long as Sole Survivor (2013 film) and Fish Out of Water (2009 film) are standalone articles. As a reader, there's nothing more frustrating than clicking a name in an article about a work to learn about them and being redirected to an article about another work. Delete is a far more preferable outcome. Nardog (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally still would softly favor a merge (as a reader, I prefer ending up on the page that has the most information about them), but pageview data suggests that the Sole Survivor page had 10000 views in 2024, which does make a redirect much less appealing. Suriname0 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. First off, this is such a mess right now that it would take a huge amount of time and effort to fix the multiple, obvious, tag-able issues. Secondly, as Jay8g discovered and reverted, autobiographical edits by the subject or a close contact, are reason enough to delete or at least page-protect. Third, the subject's major claim to notability is based upon a fringe idea. Meta and X might allow such biased opinions, but we are not primarily a social media platform. I'm not against a redirect to The Telepathy Tapes, which is labeled as speculative and is possibly notable (although I don't concede that). Bearian (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]