Talk:Taylor Hill (model)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Taylor Marie Hill 2017.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against moving the page at this time.(non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Primary topic per pageviews, others do not come close. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pageviews here 162.208.168.92 (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - pageviews may make this the most read article at the moment, but is there any reason to think that the model will be sufficiently well-known to be the primary topic in ten or twenty years time? We need to be cautious about WP:Recentism here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is (model) preventing model fans from finding the article, the suburb of Huddersfield is better known in Yorkshire and has greater encyclopaedic significance here. I've no doubt that a Victoria's Secret Angel gets more views for the moment, but Taylor Hill in Yorkshire will be there when those viewers have moved on to viewing something else. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Midnightblueowl and In ictu oculi. Subject may be currently benefiting from what may be described as fleeting celebrity, but that does not appear to be sufficient to force the dab page into adoption of parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get that a model is not the most encyclopedic topic we have, but we're talking about an article with 600+ daily hits, vs. others in the single digits. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - She maybe the most known/viewed Taylor Hill on Wikipedia right now, but she doesn't seem that famous to warrant a change, like Elizabeth Taylor. She isn't as well known as other past Victoria's Secret Angels (i.e - Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Adriana Lima, and Gisele Bundchen), nor is she as well known as some of her modelling contemporaries (Kendall Jenner, Cara Delevingne, and Gigi Hadid). She's arguably most known for being a Victoria's Secret Angel since 2015, but the brand isn't as relevant as it was 10-20 years ago. Since it looks like she's venturing into acting, if she does become a "big name star" in Hollywood or does something else to become very prominent in the future, then maybe discussions can be brought up once again. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Last discussed in 2021. A year later, the American model still gets hundreds of pageviews daily, and the other topics get next to nothing. There are no other articles at the dabpage that have such overwhelming long-term significance to overrule the pageviews advantage - and one could definitely argue that Taylor Hill has long-term significance of her own. 162 etc. (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per long term significance. The topic is primary by views currently, but given the lack of long term significance that won't be true in twenty years, and we need to be careful to avoid WP:RECENTISM. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no primary. Certainly not in Gbooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.