This article is incorrectly named. All WP:Reliable sources and nearly all "news" sources (and even the subject's own social media) refer to this subject as "Mackenzie". "Kenzie" is a nickname used only by her friends, and perhaps some fans. See: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws vs. https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=%22Kenzie+ziegler%22 I have asked an admin to move the article to Mackenzie Ziegler, which is a page that was previously protected from creation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: What administrator did you ask? This article, which was created by socks, not to mention the original salted article that also involved sock puppetry, needs to be dealt with in some fashion before any move over the salted name takes place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Newyorkbrad and one other admin, in case Brad cannot get to it soon. I think that Mackenzie Ziegler is probably now notable -- she has 5.8 million instagram followers, was a main character on a successful reality TV show for several years, and has attracted a considerable amount of press. More than 3,000 Google "News" sources refer to her: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is little benefit to the box here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]