Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hodgetwins (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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgetwins[edit]

[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)

This article was declined multiple times in draftspace, by myself, Lapablo, and Eternal Shadow (at least this time, I know that I have declined this subject in the past). It looks like the original editor removed the decline notice and AngusWOOF accepted the draft not knowing its history. Prior to its time in draftspace, this article failed a deletion discussion, and was A7 speedy deleted two-weeks ago. The sources added include repeated fact-checks of false statements they have made, as well as several sources that WP lists as unreliable (Daily Caller, Blaze Media, Newsweek). Finally, I would argue that this fails WP:NWEB. Bkissin (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many new sources have been added since the previous deletions. Yes, sources are fact checking their claims as they have a very large following. You link to a guideline about web content, but this is a biography. Remove all the sources you claim as unreliable, and there is still plenty of coverage to pass guidelines. The in-depth coverage provided by Martinsville Bulletin, CNBNEWS Gloucester City, San Antonio Current, Oklahoma Gazette, and LA Weekly makes this easily pass WP:BIO notability guidelines.--Ethan Wood Snr (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment previous AFD resulted in soft delete as the sources were mainly from primary sources. This has since been replaced by multiple articles from USA Today Network, which shows some notability nationally, and some articles showed they toured internationally. If you want to remove the RSP failing sources, that would be fine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit I was planning on adding them in myself and I must say that between their several channels and prominence as African American conservatives it should not be so controversial to add them on here. They have gained a bit of notoriety and I would be happy to help bring the quality of this stub up. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak) It arguably fails WP:NWEB but also has significant controversies to counteract that. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Delete due to notability issues. Their mentions in national press seem brief, haven't seen one where they are the focus or play a large part. Seem to get coverage in local press where they tour but not sure if any of the sources are WP:RS. For example, I do not see LA Weekly in WP:RSP. Rab V (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep As noted above, they have a lot of sources. Most are local to wherever they are performing, but that's a lot of places apparently. Article needs a ton of work, but topic meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Another case of the media giving unearned attention to Youtubes who are attention whoring with controversies.★Trekker (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With that I'll agree (though I would have used different words :-) `Hobit (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 25 July 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.