The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Overall: Article meets newness criteria. At 1523 characters per DYKCheck script, the article is a tad short, but, just about meets the eligibility criteria. I would urge the authors to consider expanding if possible. No concerns regarding sourcing. Earwig's Copyvio detector scores good. Hook is cited and is interesting. QPQ is completed. All this makes the hook good to go. However, I would want to pause and ask the attention of another reviewer on a specific point. Does this article's subject meet WP:N criteria to warrant a page? I do not know how this works specific to models, but, is this article's subject's claim to fame largely stemming from their father? I am good either way. Marking status as 'again' to seek a second opinion. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Ktin There are plenty of sources out there (I did a Google News search and stopped after page ten), the problem is a lot of them are, well, WP:BLPSOURCES violating dross. So while I'm confident the sources are there, it's kind of like searching for a needle in a haystack. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:, I see your point. Let me know how you would want to proceed? I am happy to mark this approved if you think we should be good here. Alternately, if you think we can seek a second opinion, we can do that as well. Ktin (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I think going for a second opinion would be better in the long run. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging AleatoryPonderings. AP - pardon the unsolicited ping. Is this something we can ask your opinion on. I think the article is good to go, but, would want your thoughts on any concerns with WP:N before we mark this one as approved. If this finds you in the middle of off-wiki commitments, and you are not able to chime in, I can totally understand. Ktin (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
My rule of thumb for notability is: are there sufficient sources to write a reasonably in-depth article about the subject, with a focus on the subject's primary claim to notability? Here, Walker is a model—so there should be good sources to write about her work as a model. This undated article says that her "first big campaign" was pre-fall 2021. So quite recently. However, this CNN article dated 8 March 2021 says she opened Givenchy's show at Paris Fashion Week. This article in Vogue is a profile of Walker, albeit partially composed of a WP:INTERVIEW. Overall, there's a possible WP:TOOSOON concern. My gut sense is that this would be kept at AfD, but I have to say I'm not absolutely persuaded of notability. But I don't think that should prevent this article from passing at DYK. DYK requires policy compliance; WP:N is a much-debated and Protean guideline. People can and do nominate DYKs for deletion. If someone's sufficiently concerned, they can nominate this. AleatoryPonderings (???)(!!!) 01:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks AleatoryPonderings for that comprehensive and (as always) well thought through opinion. Much appreciated. @Ritchie333: Marking the hook as approved. Thanks for your patience. Ktin (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:. Thanks. That tag didn't exist at the time this review was conducted. Tagging @Ritchie333: as well. Ktin (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron I wasn't watching the article, but essentially an IP put a load of spam in it, making it worse, and Theroadislong reverted it but went too far in the opposite direction. I've reverted back to the version reviewed here, which is properly sourced. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Article meets newness criteria. At 1523 characters per DYKCheck script, the article is a tad short, but, just about meets the eligibility criteria. I would urge the authors to consider expanding if possible. No concerns regarding sourcing. Earwig's Copyvio detector scores good. Hook is cited and is interesting. QPQ is completed. All this makes the hook good to go. However, I would want to pause and ask the attention of another reviewer on a specific point. Does this article's subject meet WP:N criteria to warrant a page? I do not know how this works specific to models, but, is this article's subject's claim to fame largely stemming from their father? I am good either way. Marking status as 'again' to seek a second opinion. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)