Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Medeiros

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. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems identified with the sources. Sandstein 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Medeiros[edit]

[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)

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only an interview and a blog post. Vexations (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those new sources are not about the subject. One compares his pixel art tutorials to Disney's twelve principles of animation, and that is not serious commentary. The other only has that Pedro Medeiros is asking for donations on Patreon fir his tutorials. Vexations (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis of the new links. Maybe TOOSOON. I did some looking, and not enough independent RS. --Theredproject (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vexation's arguments.96.127.242.226 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep new sources were added. Brunhildr (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vexation's analysis of the new sources are on point. And I also feel that the article is TOOSOON. But if it has the potential to grow in the near future, I suggest it to be moved into AfC draftspace, so that the author can modify and publish it when the time comes. EROS ^message 10:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (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.