Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The HodgeTwins


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The HodgeTwins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatantly failing general notability, this article is a puff piece that includes phrases such as "the twins display an exceptional knowledge" and "play an important role in bringing information". Only solid source I found is this one, and there is certainly no extensive coverage about them in reliable sources. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable; just being identical twins does not confer notability. Quis separabit?  17:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article doesn't exist because they are twins. There is a case for notability here, also saw .--Milowent • hasspoken  16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument "because they are twins". The source you've provided is non-reliable and a puff piece. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the only non-promotional source I found was the one listed above in Body Building online magazine. However, that is only one source and as it mainly exists to entice advertisers (the first link on the site is to "Store"), I have trouble considering it a highly reliable source. LaMona (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2015 (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.