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 Keep per WP:SNOW, again. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Paintings[edit]

The Red Paintings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dear Wikipedia administrator,

I, Alan Butler, representing the band The Red Paintings, would like to request the deletion of the Wikipedia article about my client for reasons explained in detail below.

I’m acting on behalf of data subject, Trash McSweeney, prominently mentioned in the said article, and can provide proof of the data subject’s identity and address on request.

Reasons for erasure request

I hereby nominate the Wikipedia entry about The Red Paintings for special proposed deletion (PROD), more specifically under the subcategory of unsourced biographies of living people (BLPPROD), for three Wikipedia policy compliant reasons:

1.      Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify certain claims in the article have failed (please reference point 7 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).

Ø  The vast majority of the 20 provided references are broken or deleted, specifically those referenced under numbers 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15, 18-20.

Ø  The verifiability of most claims within this article, such as the lead singer’s legal name or the band’s incorrectly stated active years, is questionable at best and relies heavily on original research, which goes directly against ‘No original research’ (NOR), one of the Wikipedia’s three core content policies.

Ø  Some of the landing pages in the reference list are completely irrelevant or unrelated to the work of my client, such as number 20 & 2.

2.      The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes (please reference point 6 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).

Ø  An example of the several false claims in the article is the following statement, “Clashes with their Modern Music label/Sony BMG  label at the time over creative direction saw the band ending its relationship…”, “shows with Alien Ant Farm, Chad Smith (RHCP)…”, “supporting The Posies for their Los Angeles show in July, as well as support for German industrial act Atari Teenage Riot...“ that is referenced by a broken link and cannot be verified by any other reliable source on the internet.

Ø  Such groundless claims go against neutrality, one of Wikipedia’s five pillars, hurt the band’s good name and public image and can be considered slander and/or hoaxes.

3.      The subjects of the article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (please reference point 8 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’).

Ø  My client hasn’t been active in the public eye or publicly covered since 2013. Their official website as well as all their social media accounts are offline, their music cannot be found on any of the major streaming platforms, and no future events are planned. As of 2022, the band doesn’t exist or generate any new online entries or conversations. I’d therefore like to propose that my client doesn’t warrant their own article.

Ø  Even though Wikipedia’s policies don’t regard notability as temporary, my client wasn’t subject to significant media coverage and was merely of short-term interest even while active. I’m therefore requesting a reassessment of the suitability of the existing article on the basis of ‘General notability guide’ (GNG) and invoking the BLP1E principle.

Ø  Given the reasons stated above, Trash McSweeney is no longer officially associated with the subject of the article and doesn’t consider himself a notable person. Coming up in Google search interferes with his private life, and as an unnoteworthy person, he’d like to request that his personal privacy be respected.

I’m happy to provide any further information necessary for the approval of deletion of the said article, such a thorough analysis of all the false claims and word-of-mouth information.

Kind regards,

Alan Butler Alan191919 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

• Keep - the article at least has some information that can be salvaged. It would have to be heavily truncated, but there is an article under the rubbish. See WP:Deletion is not cleanup. In addition, if there's a legal concern such as privacy, please take it up with our project's overseer, the Wikimedia Foundation, instead - not some random people on the Internet who want to build an encyclopedia. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Quick Delete - An "encyclopedia" is of valid information which this is clearly not. As pointed out due to the fact there are 80% broken or misinformed links that can not be used as factual source, that there has been excessive amounts of edits on this page due to people not knowing what is factual or hearsay The article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes (please reference point 6 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify certain claims in the article have failed (please reference point 7 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). The subjects of the article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (please reference point 8 of Wikipedia’s official ‘Reasons for deletion of articles’). No findings of any social media accounts to back any of these Wikipedia edits, as it is clear the band doesn’t exist or generate any new online entries or conversations. The act doesn’t warrant their own article. Alan191919 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems clear it meets GNG. A clean up of unreferenced claims would be beneficial. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. There are to many broken source links to warrant the page fit for Public reliable information. Much of the information is hearsay. There are no links on the internet to back any of the information directly with the act who has no social media, Spotify or YouTube pages. The band is non existent. Alan191919 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs.[reply]

  • Comment This is the nominator's 3rd vote, here. Furthermore, while the process is being debated this user has deleted whole sections of the article making it appear weaker than it was. Remember this user has a close connection to the subject of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    :Strong Delete - That is because the sections being deleted have broken sources or sources do not relate to the information within. Please note my edits and check the sources I am referring too. Again please refer to my original points as to why this page should be deleted. Alan191919 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

• Strong Keep The nominator falsely claims that the article has no reliable sources. Remember this article was at AfD, less than a week ago and was Kept. It was resolved that it needed a clean-up but not deletion. As for the related albums/EP articles, most should become redirects to this article in preference to deletion. Some do have (or had) reliable sources for their existence and may require further investigation by unbiased editors. The nominator should stop editing the main article or its related ones.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Delete Well if that is the case why did no one clean it up? There are 15 either broken or misleading sources that accumulate this article and much of it misleading information. Alan191919 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

  • • Comment Another delete vote by the nominator. As for the clean-up process, it only began three days ago, after the previous AfD was closed as Keep. An unidentified user disrupted the process and attempts to clean-up. Then you proposed the article for a second AfD, which further hindered this process. Your deletion of content at the article has caused disruptions. Now you complain that the article has not been cleaned up? Please do not edit at the article or associated pages.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• :Strong Delete - The page has had multiple misleading (un)sourced edits for many years. As with the current information on the page, 15 of the 20 attached outsourced links are either broken or misleading information warranting a page deletion. REF to my original statement. Alan191919 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alan191919 (talk • contribs).[reply]
• Keep - Article needs a bit of a clean up, but, as far as I can see, it seems to GNG. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 01:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Their EP, Destroy the Robots (August 2006) reached the ARIA singles chart top 100 (see ARIA ref, now in article).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I voted in the first AfD just three days ago, and volunteered to clean up the article myself. The first AfD was apparently initiated by band leader McSweeney, and I recommended WP:BIOSELF and WP:AUTOPROB for correct procedures on how to handle articles about yourself. This time the apparent manager is repeating the same process, but with no lessons learned from the first go-round. Every unsupported statement mentioned by the manager above can be removed easily, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what in the article actually damages McSweeney's personal life. Perhaps McSweeney is trying to erase bad memories from a previous career, but there are better ways to do it than this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The additional AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Paintings albums was created incorrectly and is merely a repeat of the manager's text in this one. I have requested speedy deletion for housekeeping purposes over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha not even major celebrities' have such detailed Wikipedia's as this one. Seems some of your admins have had your feelings hurt and need to prove a point, got nothing better to do with your time hu? 85.56.220.216 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone really wants this band's articles to be deleted, and probably not for honest reasons. The first AfD was from someone claiming to be the band leader, this second AfD is from someone claiming to be the manager, and now we have this anonymous person who is hacking away at the articles and leaving insulting comments here and on various talk pages. Subject this saga to the duck test and see what hatches. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG. There is no need for Alan191919 to respond with another !vote. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]