This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
WP:PAGEDECIDE question, most of the coverage appears to be jointly and I don't really think it's the kind that we should base a BLP on especially. Controverted merge so I guess I could use AFD as suggested but figure I might try the PROPMERGE process instead and see how well that works. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7M and Robert Shinn (which redirects there) has had significant coverage dating back to 2022 from several WP:RS:[1][2][3][4][5][6]. The Wilking Sisters have had coverage dating back to 2020 [7][8][9][10][11].
Thanks for providing those sources, but take a look at Wikipedia:BLP1E and even WP:Notability. Sources about the Wilkings as influencers and then the lawsuit against 7M don't really assert individual notability (to our standards) for either topic in this case. I think they're interesting and potentially notable, but don't warrant individual articles at this point. Unless you can find a way to appropriately bolster these stubs (I admit I only looked at a few of your sources), I think a merge is most appropriate for now.— TAnthonyTalk17:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure BLP1E applies when there is coverage from their online presence dating back to 2020, lawsuits and 7M affiliation in 2022, and then a whole documentary of which they are the main subject that premiered in 2024? Not to mention ongoing coverage through this year [12].Mbdfar (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that just being an influencer and having articles written about how you are an influencer (even in reputable sources) makes you notable by our definition. The "single event" that lends some notability is the lawsuit alleging that 7M is a cult and Miranda's involvement. Still, I do not see how that alone (especially since as far as I can tell there has been no resolution) makes the Wilking sisters notable enough for a biographical article, and it certainly does not make 7M worthy of an article. Especially since the documentary article exists, and appropriately covers every notable aspect of these stubs, which themselves mostly talk about the cult lawsuit.— TAnthonyTalk21:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, part of the reason why I opened this as a merge proposal instead of an AFD is because I don't think WP:PAGEDECIDE questions are or ought to be decided as an isolated question of notability, without considering the context of related topics. I would expand on the concept a bit more, but the only way I can think of to do that is to essentially reiterate what is written in the guideline section I linked to, and I feel like that would seem excessive given that you have about the same tenure than I do and presumably know the guidelines just as well. Some of the sources are really poor for a BLP, tabloid junk is not typically what we would consider BLPRS, in my opinion, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, my response did not address PAGEDECIDE because I don't think it's relevant. These subjects are not WP:CFORKs of the documentary made about them. A very brief Google search brought me those examples of significant coverage outside of the umbrella of the documentary, demonstrating that these articles can be improved beyond WP:PERMASTUBs. The subjects you propose to merge are simply not derivative of the documentary, and can be expanded upon with information that would be outside of the scope of the documentary article. Mbdfar (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on which direction the merge should go, so if the change of direction is enough to satisfy your objection on 1, then sure, I'll take that as my second choice. re the rest:
I don't think whether articles can be improved beyond permastubs is the deciding factor of that section given that it is only about 20% of one of three points in that section, nor CFORK which is only mentioned in the hatnote and discussed, at least in the manner I believe to be our shared interpretation of the meaning of CFORK.
On the other hand, I do believe the section is a relevant section of WP:N, in fact arguably the most relevant section of N, even though inflections of merge only appear once in the section proper compared to three each for WHYN and FAILN. I believe this because it is the only section that explicitly and directly addresses and attempts to provide guidance on the decision whether to merge (or not merge, as the case may be). In particular, NOPAGE, or PAGEDECIDE, is the only section that covers when an article should be standalone, which provides us with both sides of the standard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only real notability I'm seeing for 7M Films and the Wilking sisters in the stub articles is established by the documentary Dancing for the Devil. In other words, if it wasn't for the documentary, I believe both of these stubs would be deleted. Also, it seems that all three stubs were created by the same (now blocked) user on the same day.— TAnthonyTalk15:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
