Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiggo

Indiggo

Indiggo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no WP:notability for the pair, at best this should be split into two articles, one for each sister, although I don't think they meet the standards of notability either. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The twins are notable together only Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, your arguments here were particularly WP:BIASED and not particularly persuasive. Your statment "The twins are notable together only" is also not particualrly persuasive, would you care to back it up with a proof? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep but partial deletion: removal of all the unsourced and promos added by the twins and their puppets from the page history. I just did a cleanup on the article as per talk page consensus. I have removed all the unsourced, fake and self-promotional content, and rewritten some to accurately reflect the few reliable sources. Although the twins are relatively unknown to the public and the page receives fewer than 30 view counts per day, keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language by their suspected sock puppets like what Paul Lewis Smith did before. Also the twins may get more popular in the future. BigCat82 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as and FYI and with no agreement or disagreement with your stament, pages can be WP:SALTed to provent recreation issues. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the info. I just found that the Romanian wiki page on Indiggo exists and needless to say the page is flooded with all unsourced promos (the Romanian wikipedia standards are probably different than the English site here). Maintaining a neutral, unbiased and accurate article about the twins here in the English site is not a bad idea. BigCat82 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

BigCat, if they meet requirements in the future, then an article can be written in the future. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Check the refs carefully - they are either non-RS, or are trivial mentions. I'll happily change my !vote if more appropriate references (in whatever language) can be shown. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)