Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez


 * 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. ✗ plicit  07:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable persons with a ton of primary sources and coverage restricted to local media, interviews and primary sources. nearlyevil 665  05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Speedy delete: per CSD G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here; that's a link to this discussion? Was there another you were trying to point to?  Kuru   (talk)  18:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kuru ? The Article should be speedey deleted per CSD G4, recreation of previous via AfD deleted Article. Articles for deletion/Dylan and Dakota Gonzalez CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I was unclear. G4 is for quickly removing articles that have previously been deleted as part of a formal deletion discussion. The link you're providing is to this page. We would need a link to a prior discussion to act upon. I don't see anything obvious in the history. Kuru   (talk)  20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize, clearly a mistake of mine. Anyway fails clearly WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: WP:CSD does not apply, as it was only deleted via PROD. However, this makes the page ineligible for soft deletion.
 * no to speedy We need a full discussion on this.  The reason behind the proposed speedy is unclear and circular, which may be an error or something more.  So let's let the discussion run its course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per logic at WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.