Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kiki Twins: Difference between revisions
Georgiamonet (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Weak delete''' - Usual issues: [[WP:BLP|Unreferenced bio of living people]]; [[WP:BAND|unsourced claims to notability of music entertainers]]; [[WP:V|lack of sources]]; borderline promotional. --[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Weak delete''' - Usual issues: [[WP:BLP|Unreferenced bio of living people]]; [[WP:BAND|unsourced claims to notability of music entertainers]]; [[WP:V|lack of sources]]; borderline promotional. --[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:MUSIC]], also appears to be a COI/Spam case. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:MUSIC]], also appears to be a COI/Spam case. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' obvious promotional text with agenda. [[User:Georgiamonet|Georgiamonet]] ([[User talk:Georgiamonet|talk]]) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:57, 3 February 2010
- The Kiki Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was twice deleted previously on csd grounds, once by me and once by another admin as noted here. I explained to the creator that the article's deletion came about as the result of the article being in violation of too many policies to remain on the site, and gave two avenues for its potential recreation here. I made it very clear at the time that the article, if re-uploaded, would qualify for csd deletion again if the reloaded version was not vastly superior to the deleted version. My advice apparently fell on deaf ears, as the reloaded page here is an exact copy of the two previously deleted versions. I am therefore nominating this for deletion on grounds that it fails notability and reliable sourcing guidelines TomStar81 (Talk) 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Usual issues: Unreferenced bio of living people; unsourced claims to notability of music entertainers; lack of sources; borderline promotional. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, also appears to be a COI/Spam case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete obvious promotional text with agenda. Georgiamonet (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)