Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zac and Suellen

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zac and Suellen[edit]

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

Notability in question. References provided are not good ones. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are self-published and mainly inadequate ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clear-cut case to delete. Their main supposed claim to fame is having a web show on Youtube. There's no proof that the show is notable. Their most viewed video has less than 400 views in a year. The celebgossip site in the references appears self-published. It only has about 5 articles (multiple ones about this pair). The blog template (about section) isn't even fully filled out. Based on the user name of the article creator, this is apparently an autobiography. --JamesAM (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly gossip. It would have made a bit more sense if the article were about the show. But I suspect that's not WP notable either. I see only "celeb" gossip blogs cited. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2011 (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.