Deletion of The Baker Twins (2nd nomination)

Comment: Restoration was acceptable, given that there wasn't enough participation in the first discussion to render it a hard delete rather than a soft one, but what the article still ''fails'' to do is properly establish that they're notable enough to have an article ''at all''. The references here are 50 per cent |primary sources (their own self-published website, their own self-published tweet and a directory entry in IMDb) that cannot support notability — and of the three that are to media, one is an unrecoverable dead link to a ''student'' magazine (a class of sourcing we deprecate as ''much'' less carrying of notability than real general market media), while another is a Q&A interview in which they're talking about ''themselves'' in an advertorialized manner. The only source here that isn't a ''complete'' non-starter is ''Windspeaker'' — but while that's a start, it's not a magic ''finish'' all by itself as the ''only'' non-garbage source in play. As always, Wikipedia is ''not'' a free public relations platform on which people are ''entitled'' to have articles just because they ''exist'' — it's an encyclopedia, on which certain specific standards of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of |reliable sourcing have to be surpassed, for an article to become earned. But the sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to ''exempt'' the sourcing from having to cut mustard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS)