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 Speedy Keep, while there is one delete vote, it is based on a false assumption, and the nom has specifically stated they do not wish their opinion counted. Therefore closing as keep per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I previously prodded the article, which was removed recently. I am still not sure that these brothers meet the notability requirements. I post the AFD to garner other opinions on this matter, but would ask the closing admin NOT to factor in my opinion when it comes time to close. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib}

• Speedy Delete If it was previously deleted, and brought back without a consensus you can speedy it per G4

• There's nothing in the log to indicate it has been speedied previously, nominator only mentioned a WP:PROD, which anyone can decline for any reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe more of a "weak keep". I don't know if I'd consider The Evening Standard a very reliable source, but coverage there does confer a certain degree of notability, and coupled with coverage in The Sunday Times, that seems to get them above the bar of WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Times coverage is enough, barely. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - two sources is borderline, but hey...Wikipedia does not have a paper limitation. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Youth World Champions in acrobatic sports" means they've competed in the top level of their sport in their age group (the times articles confirms this), meeting WP:ATHLETE and I doubt non-notable people would be invited to perform in the Royal Variety Show. They're covered significantly in at least 2 independent reliable sources, so they meet WP:GNG too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added two sources when I removed the prod tag, but there are plenty more available from a simple Google News archive search, including blue-chip reliable sources such as The Scotsman, the BBC, The Independent and The Age. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2009 (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.