- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The Stokes twins
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Stokes twins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP/BLP1E issues. Social media stars who are accused of a crime. They seem to have a lot of Tiktok followers, but not enough substantial coverage to write a BLP-compliant article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: It looks like all 5 references in the article are in compliance with WP:RS, they are all major news outlets from multiple countries like CNN, Inside Edition, UK news, etc. Google news search of their name also shows more reliable published sources not yet referenced, I think they should be added and the page expanded instead of deleted. It's currently a page without much info. Their notability also seems to be beyond this one event, as there are articles on them for more general interest due to their social media "fame" for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-stokes-twins-earn-sponsored-posts-tiktok-instagram-2020-2 CosmicNotes ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Mostly per CosmicNotes. Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/BLP1E. All the sources are just repeating the
news story of some nobodies faking a robbery. Would be a "...and finally..." segment on a slow news day.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me
15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Please note the new source I added shows notability outside of this one event. BLP1E only applies "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The added source shows coverage unrelated to the one event due to their large social media following. They also meet point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER, due to 28 million followers on TikTok and 800 million likes. If that is not a "large fan base" I don't know what is. CosmicNotes ( talk) 06:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, we are not a news site. Commission of a minor crime (however unusual and amusing) does not constitute encyclopedic notability for people who were not otherwise notable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee ( talk) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee ( talk) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E - The only substantial coverage on the pair is on the single news event. What little coverage there is in reliable sources outside of coverage of that event is not enough to support a WP:BLP compliant article. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete no substantial coverage, not notable. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep sources are in compliance with WP:RS, And WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, there is clearly coverage outside of the one event of them getting arrested, this in Inside Edition and this in Business Insider. As such they clearly pass WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, per "no, WP:BLP1E is not a catchall for everything where one event is bigger than others", per "whether someone is a 'nobody' or not is not determined by whether you've heard of them"... Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The Stokes twins
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Stokes twins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP/BLP1E issues. Social media stars who are accused of a crime. They seem to have a lot of Tiktok followers, but not enough substantial coverage to write a BLP-compliant article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: It looks like all 5 references in the article are in compliance with WP:RS, they are all major news outlets from multiple countries like CNN, Inside Edition, UK news, etc. Google news search of their name also shows more reliable published sources not yet referenced, I think they should be added and the page expanded instead of deleted. It's currently a page without much info. Their notability also seems to be beyond this one event, as there are articles on them for more general interest due to their social media "fame" for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-stokes-twins-earn-sponsored-posts-tiktok-instagram-2020-2 CosmicNotes ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Mostly per CosmicNotes. Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/BLP1E. All the sources are just repeating the
news story of some nobodies faking a robbery. Would be a "...and finally..." segment on a slow news day.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me
15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Please note the new source I added shows notability outside of this one event. BLP1E only applies "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The added source shows coverage unrelated to the one event due to their large social media following. They also meet point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER, due to 28 million followers on TikTok and 800 million likes. If that is not a "large fan base" I don't know what is. CosmicNotes ( talk) 06:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, we are not a news site. Commission of a minor crime (however unusual and amusing) does not constitute encyclopedic notability for people who were not otherwise notable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee ( talk) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee ( talk) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E - The only substantial coverage on the pair is on the single news event. What little coverage there is in reliable sources outside of coverage of that event is not enough to support a WP:BLP compliant article. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete no substantial coverage, not notable. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep sources are in compliance with WP:RS, And WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, there is clearly coverage outside of the one event of them getting arrested, this in Inside Edition and this in Business Insider. As such they clearly pass WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, per "no, WP:BLP1E is not a catchall for everything where one event is bigger than others", per "whether someone is a 'nobody' or not is not determined by whether you've heard of them"... Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.