Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hila Klein

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Hila Klein}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Hila Klein}})

I don't see enough reliable sources that talk about Klein in depth. The few sources in this article that are not gossipy or clearly unreliable are either centered on the youtube channels she co-hosted with her husband (H3 Podcast, H3H3productions) or the fashion company she founded (Teddy Fresh). Although the podcasts and the company could be notable, she is not. It is possible that this page could be redirected to any of those articles. My source eval is the following:

• [https://uproxx.com/style/teddy-fresh-hila-klein-interview/] Fails WP:INDEPENDENT and SIGCOV, most of this article is Klein talking about her own company, there's not enough independent coverage of Klein herself
• [https://wwd.com/feature/teddy-fresh-inspiration-nostalgia-and-reflects-hila-klein-personal-style-1234994241/] Arguably reliable, but the source is more about Teddy Fresh than Hila Klein. It doesn't support the need for an article about her separate from Teddy Fresh.
• [https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-hila-klein-announces-live-h3-podcast-super-pregnant-fans-too-excited] WP:SPORTSKEEDA
• [https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/h3h3-ethan-hila-klein-second-child-1661489/] Routine WP:DEXERTO article that doesn't discuss Klein in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, Internet, Israel, United States of America, and California. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Could a combined Ethan and Hila Klein article be feasible? Right now it's just a redirect to h3h3Productions. ~{{Smallcaps|Darth Stabro}}^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural keep. Further to Darth Stabro's observation, Ethan and Hila Klein and their two companies exhibit significant overlap and collectively satisfy the GNG. With ease. A merge of the four related topics would resolve the excessive fragmentation. Contrary to what was claimed, this nomination evaluates the references in the article rather than the sources, which conflicts with the NEXIST principle. This isn't critical, as an entirely new merge procedure is the best way forward. Still worth keeping in mind for future nominations. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Alternatively no objection to discuss a merger here either. I assume we can't unless the debate is broadened early on and in consensus. Hence the procedural keep. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge, please identify an existing target article. I also don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep which typically is invoked with an inadequate or bad faith nomination and that is not the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::User:Liz, the merge target is right there: Ethan and Hila Klein! Hence the reference to Darth Stabro. I explicitly have built on his excellent input. Please provide a reference for what you describe as "typical". Also please explain why an opinion can't be atypical. "Typical" includes by definition space for exemptions. Every case is different. I clearly say alongside {{tq|no objection to discuss a merger here either}}. When relisting an article or in the closure of AfDs, it's better not to concentrate too much on one participant so not to put anyone on a pedestal. Unless there happen to be positive things to say. Praise is hardly ever a problem. The procedural keep here is to allow a broader and constructive discussion on the Ethan and Hila Klein content, while not dictating in any way what Badbluebus must do or badly reflecting on the nomination. The nomination was in very good faith! I believe that the content can gain from a broader debate, possible through the merge procedure, yet I provided multiple options! gidonb (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::gidonb, Ethan and Hila Klein is not an acceptable target because it's a Redirect, not an article and we don't redirect articles to other redirects. Please check links before you suggest them. I have a script installed that shows Redirects in a different color so it was immediately clear to me that this was unsuitable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::User:Liz, I kindly ask that you read my texts more carefully before responding, particularly when responding from the structural elements of a page. I propose keeping the article and initiating a totally new merge discussion to consolidate the content from all four related articles into one single target: Ethan and Hila Klein. This is a completely legitimate approach.

::::I did not dismiss the possibility that other solutions to achieve the same goal may exist; I only expressed skepticism about their feasibility. If you now confirm that such alternatives do not exist, this would only strengthen my position to keep the article—a position that you previously questioned in your relist comment! gidonb (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think I will just pass on closing this discussion and see if another closer can follow this. No sense arguing when I think we're talking past each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's only complex if we make it complex. I have suggested keeping the article and starting a new merge procedure. It's in line with the comment before me. Nominator wanted to delete or possibly redirect. That is a different position, yet they also explained their rationale. gidonb (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Thus far there is a consensus among all respondents to merge :Hila Klein and three other articles, or at the very least one, into Ethan and Hila Klein. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.