Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baker Twins (2nd nomination)

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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker Twins (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Page was soft deleted in May 2018 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Baker_Twins. KalHolmann (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology leading to 2nd nomination:

• On 18 October 2018 User:SamuelParmi1 requested undeletion of The Baker Twins "because some hacker deleted it." This accusation was refuted by User:Jéské Couriano and brushed aside by admin clpo13, who'd deleted the page on 10 May 2018.
• On 20 October 2018, without commenting at the page for undeletion, admin Diannaa restored the deleted page in lieu of a newly submitted draft (created October 19) that she explained "was a copy-paste, identical to the deleted article." In other words, no attempt was made to improve the page in the five months since its removal or to in any way address the reasons it was deleted.
  

Policy grounds on which to delete:

• Unresolved Conflict of interest, specifically WP:SELFPROMOTE, by Thebakertwins, a single-purpose account that edited ONLY The Baker Twins, and was responsible for 16% of the total edits thereto, before being indefinitely blocked.
• Unresolved WP:PROMOTION and Notability issues raised last May by User:Duffbeerforme, who noted, "Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece."
  

KalHolmann (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional to Chronology. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Baker. Articles on the two individuals were deleted after an afd in August. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece. Reposting by another newly created promotional SPA does not change the underlying lack of notability. (Diana's restoration was entirely above board as first twins afd was closed as soft delete). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Restoration was acceptable, given that there wasn't enough participation in the first discussion to render it a hard delete rather than a soft one, but what the article still fails to do is properly establish that they're notable enough to have an article at all. The references here are 50 per cent primary sources (their own self-published website, their own self-published tweet and a directory entry in IMDb) that cannot support notability — and of the three that are to media, one is an unrecoverable dead link to a student magazine (a class of sourcing we deprecate as much less carrying of notability than real general market media), while another is a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in an advertorialized manner. The only source here that isn't a complete non-starter is Windspeaker — but while that's a start, it's not a magic finish all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it's an encyclopedia, on which certain specific standards of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable sourcing have to be surpassed, for an article to become earned. But the sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per KalHolmann's comments. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a possibility for canvassing/meatpuppetry although it doesn't seem to have happened. See this tweet. Vermont (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: I fear you may misunderstand canvassing on Wikipedia. Our behavioral guideline discourages off-wiki communication to notify editors, but the tweet to which you link did not emanate (as far as we know) from a Wikipedia editor. Rather, it's a plea from a celebrity to her fans to help retain The Baker Twins, which her follower Dylan Curtis "apparently" restored. If you know of any Wikipedia directive that forbids such off-wiki entreaties by non-editors, please advise. KalHolmann (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, I apologize. I intended to give a warning for the possibility of many unnamed editors and/or SPA's coming to this page from the link on that Twitter post. Vermont (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.