Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montoya Twinz

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Montoya Twinz[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)

Aside from two local news stories, there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of these two. The sourcing is pretty much only youtube links. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than local coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All I am finding is the local coverage that the nominator mentioned. We typically need three sources at the national or international level to warrant inclusion. The absurd number of primary sources cited is probably the biggest indicator of a lack of notability in my opinion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube and local coverage do not cut it when we are talking about reliable, secondary sources. Especially the former. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient substantive third-party coverage in WP:RS to satisfy notability requirements. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing spectacularly fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. I'm unable to find anything additional... Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2021 (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.