Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Chernik (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Echo Chernik
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted and somehow restored but still has the same problems. Most of the sources were either WP:SPS, non- RS or are web only sources that no longer exist and can't be verified. Once the unsourced info is removed, there is little left to show notability. The most convincing item is not even used as a ref. Another ref isn't so much about her as about the technique she used. Subject has a long history of COI edits, and now an IP from her current hometown edits. Not convinced she passes WP:ARTIST. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although she is a talented graphic artist, she fails our notability guideline for artists. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind one part of WP:NARTIST is being notable among one's peers. I'm positive that the hot artists within in the art world will be recognized by Wikipedia last!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I cleaned up the article and added references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A commercial illustrator, working in a style that is inspired by art nouveau. No notable works. Fails WP:Artist Mduvekot (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they meet notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and draft and userfy I'd needed as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  03:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NARTIST, but then I'm guessing one needs to know something about the art world. Also, the editor who created this is not a SPA, just a fan of the art, and liked a lot of illustrators, but got banned due to their name. It's funny, to me, that I can name myself Superman because I'm a fan, yet other names are forbidden. Naturally, Wikipedia never gives out this info until after the editor account has been created. Although, in this case, this particular editor got exactly zero info from Wikipedia. Not even a "Welcome," just banned. That's what I call sheer lunacy!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not correct. The author is a SPA. "A single-purpose account (SPA) is an user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles." The lion's share of their edits were related to this article. Perhaps you are thinking of sock-puppet? A student of the subject may have a COI. The reasons for deletion don't include the author getting banned for their username. (BTW, since Superman isn't real, there's not a BLP issue with using the name. There IS one with using the name of the subject of the article you're editing.). The artist herself has also edited here as EchoX, contesting the previous deletion of this article at DRV and, as I mentioned, an IP from her hometown just happens to be editing the article. Could be coincidence or could be sock/meat puppetry. However, none of those things make the subject notable. Your reasoning for keeping is that none of us voting to delete know anything about the art world, which isn't really a policy based reason to keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. I do not consider this to SPA at all! Creator wanted to write about Michael Willian Kaluta, Gerald Brom, Tony DiTerlizzi along with the fact that there are three subjects they edited. The Superman comment referred to obvious problems that editor would have with COI issues, not BLP. (Wonder if that editor ever knew why they were blocked?) Now, I personally believe having a BLP on Wikipedia would be one hellish nightmare. You're responsible for keeping tract of it and making sure it's accurate, yet your powerless to do anything about it, but hope some poor anonymous editor.


 * My reasoning for Keep was due solely to notability. This is why, as I've stated many times before, most Wikipedia editors have little knowledge about the art world and where those artists go to read about their peers. Hint - It ain't Wikipedia!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The account made 53 edits. 52 of them were related to Chernik. That, my friend, is a textbook SPA. While you may have some personal definition, mine is passed on the guideline and is quite defensible. What the creator may have wanted to write isn't relevant. We can only base it on what they actually did. My COI/BLP comment explains the difference. I'm sorry you miss the point. Your keep vote is simply "passes NARTIST" without explaining how. Then you went on to tell the rest of us that we just aren't smart enough to know she is notable. Artists shouldn't come here looking for peers. There are sites for that. They should only come here to find notable people who belong in an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My keep vote is that this passes WP:NARTIST per recognition among their peers. Have no fear, artist don't come to Wikipedia! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, several edits later, you actually specify how you think she passes NARTIST. Why not simply do that the first time instead of wasting time acting condescending while actually not fulfilling your responsibility as a voter? Again, it makes no difference to me if artists come here or not. But since Chernik herself has openly edited on Wikipedia, your statement has been disproven. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.