Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gregory Triplets


 * 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   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gregory Triplets

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO - specifically Entertainers, the section for models, which advises that they need to have had "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". None of these appear to apply. Contested Prod. Possible self-promotion.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep marginally notable per Google, e.g., . JJL (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * UKScreen is not a reliable source - as shown here, it's a self-written directory which costs the Triplets £15 a year. The Talent magazine is a more interesting source, though that doesn't confirm the criteria in Entertainers.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrite Article would be fine with a rewrite. archanamiya  ·  talk  20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO per the nominator. I see no secondary or tertiary coverage of this group . The above diffs that were provided are not reliable indepedent sources. Here too . I see myspace, blogspots, trivial mentions. Perhaps ethnicnow.com is somewhat reliable, but I feel it's marginal. By itself, it just doesn't do the trick.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (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.