Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bluth's unrealized projects

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. Without prejudice for recreation as a section of the article on Bluth or userfying if requested for further research and improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bluth's unrealized projects

[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)

Due to the heavy reliance on a random collection of images hosted on imgur and a wiki page from TV Tropes, I can't tell if the things in this article are even real or if it's WP:NFT. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think we need to collect better citations/references for this page. Some of the films have suitable citations/references, but it is in dire need of more.Cardei012597 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GameSpot and Polygon aren't exactly the gold standard of sourcing but they're the most reliable citations we've got in this article. If all the content which references unreliable sources such as Imgur and TVTropes is removed, we're left with so little content it might as well be redirected to Don Bluth. A dynamite case methinks. SITH (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think if we just try to surf the web, gather better sources and citations, we can improve the page. We shouldn't give up. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you feel personally invested in improving this article, but I suggest you take a good long look at WP:RS for what qualifies as reliable. Adding unreliable sources to the article isn't going to change anyone's mind, or improve the article. I also agree with SITH's suggestion that you start by making a well referenced section on the topic in the article on Don Bluth rather than jumping straight to a separate article that needs to meet independent notability requirements. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this were better sourced, it's overly detailed listcruft (yet missing the details of how far into the production phase these actually got and if it is actually worth mentioning) that is better summarized in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I gathered better sources with production information. All I need to do is reword segments to fit Wikipedia's guidlines and add in new production information. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vote twice. Struck duplicate. Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I gathered better sources with production information. I also reword segments to satisfy Wikipedia's guidlines and added in new production information. You can check it, maybe even add to my repairs. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider these sources to be "better" or more reliable. Some of them do not support the sentences they are supposed to be referencing (e.g. the NYT source). Others are trivial mentions that do not assert notability. Still others are citations to other wikis or circularly cited to Wikipedia itself. Once again, I encourage you to make a "Unproduced projects" section on Don Bluth and incubate this topic there until it warrants a separate article. It's clear that forking it to its own page is not making it easy for others to collaborate to find high quality sources to support the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, then help me gather better sources. Assist in finding sources for the page, instead of giving up, going for the easy route by deleting every imperfect page. Find reliable sources for the page.Cardei012597 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you an out in the form of a section within Don Bluth. I'm even happy to let an admin WP:USERFY this page in case there's something worth keeping here. You and I and we all should be looking for an affirmative reason why this article should exist. If there is none, then it should be deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a courtesy relist for the benefit of Cardei012597 who is trying to save the page. But unless something can be found that rings the WP:N bell over the next week, I am afraid it is going away.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.