Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinn Connexion


 * 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The result was   withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Twinn Connexion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BAND, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

* Weak Delete The band released on 2 major labels during their time, and have subsequently had tracks reissued on pop culture/historically themed compilations, plus minor chart activity internationally, so they probably merit a wikipedia article. The problem, though, is that no third party references are given, just promotional/self download sites. This appears to be original research by an SPA editor. But the information had to come from somewhere so no prejudice against resubmitted with proper sourcing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The information comes directly from Jerry Hopkins. All of this information is on his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzliess (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Word of mouth is not a reliable source by our standards. Please read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I have re-written the article, removed the original research, taken out sections that appeared to be directly from the duo's website, and added references. Included is coverage - albeit brief - in each of the three major music industry trade magazines of the era to go along with an Allmusic bio. Combined with ShelbyMarion's above analysis in regards to major label releases and subsequent compilation appearances, and there's enough in my view to support a keep.  gongshow  talk  07:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work on the article., please revisit your vote following rewriting of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gongshow's edits saved this one. Alexius08 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now demonstrates that the band passes WP:GNG in light of Gongshow's improvements.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * * Changed to Keep Re: my soft delete above. The requested sourcing has been addressed, many criteria are now met. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The duo's album is actually quite a sought after collector's item in the sunshine pop genre. The recent expansion of the article demonstrates there is interest in their history even after 50 years.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (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.