Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldi Brothers

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. RL0919 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aldi Brothers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable “comic duo” who lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hereby failing WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nothing to suggest they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thank you for your time for reviewing my article . I believe that my article is realiable and had a good independent sources But I made some spelling mistakes and This slightly changed the direction of the article and made it unacceptable, and I agree with that . But now I corrected some mistakes and added some reliable independent sources and I organized the article . So please give it another look and tell me if there is anything else to edit Thank you for your time again. In addition, they have almost 43 million views on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHUjkwR5MZo-VjcGMrMOJzQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidar.ayube (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made important adjustments to the article please give it another look and tell me if you have any feedback Thank you .— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Hidar.ayube (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)]] comment added by Hidar.ayube (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 4 or 5 reliable sources profiling this duo (not trivial mentions, but interviews with them) meets GNG. MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like what Muriel said the article has good reliable references.kousai_orfahli (talk) 2:27 02 January 2020 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources are not in deep but also it meets GNG. Carla.time (talk) 14:30 3 January 2020 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would the closing admin please await the outcome of a sockpuppet investigation? Schwede 66 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator is a confirmed sock and has been blocked indefinitely. Schwede 66 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator is a sockpuppet + fails GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:54, 10 January 2020 (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.