Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chadwick (Levellers)

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. A redirect can still be editorially created if considered worthwhile. Sandstein 11:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadwick (Levellers)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While this member of The Levellers has some activity outside the group, there doesn't seem to be enough on his own to warrant a standalone article. I admit this is borderline, but to end an edit dispute going on, I'm bringing it to AfD. An editor keeps recreating the article, without improving the sourcing. Personally I don't feel he meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Levellers (band) per nom, I feel that this member fails WP:GNG. Very, very close though (and no objection to re-creation if more coverage occurs). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~: I can't see that he clearly meets any of the MUSICBIO criteria (GNG~=MUSICBIO#1). Nor do his solo albums All the Pieces and Moment (Mark Chadwick album), which are listed at Levellers (band)#Solo recordings and side projects, clearly meet WP:NALBUM. The articles for these are not much help, and it's questionable whether some of the (few) reviews are from WP:RS (eg see https://www.readjunk.com/contact/); his solo albums look of marginal notability at best and likely redirection candidates. FWIW, I may switch to a Weak Keep on a WP:NPOINTS basis if the albums were consolidated to his article with reliably sourced qualitative coverage added. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete: per Michig's identification correct redirect. As an alternative, it might be reasonable to change this to a redirect and do a move without redirect over Mark Chadwick (musician) to preserve material.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and the other AfD. Non-notable outside the band. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Flooded with them hundreds 09:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look at the history before voting! The reason this has been brought to AfD is because several people have already decided that the article should be redirected to the band, have done so, but were reverted by the article creator with no improvements. Also note that this has happened for two different article titles: the present Mark Chadwick (Levellers) and the forgotten Mark Chadwick (musician). So a vote to simply redirect, which we have above, solves nothing because if that is the AfD result, it will just get reverted yet again. The best solution here is possibly redirect to the band with protection to prevent more reverts and re-creations. The multiple existing redirects should be cleaned up too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but usually protection is requested separately at WP:RFPP, pointing to the discussion and after an admin is satisfied there have been attempts of undoing the outcome of the AfD. Flooded with them hundreds 10:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen admins initiate protection at this stage of the process if the result of the AfD is "redirect" and there is evidence that redirects have been reverted in the past with no good reason, as is definitely the case here. Don't know if that's standard procedure though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to the band article really. The article with the correct disambiguation has already been redirected to the band article. There's no value keeping this as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2019 (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.