Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markus Eliance


 * 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. Fails WP:CREATIVE. References/citations do not demonstrate significant independent secondary coverage. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Markus Eliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from passing mention in Newsweek article (cited). Last article of a former Walled garden, the rest of which have been speedied or AFD'd: see creator's user talk page. Under-referenced section on early and personal life suggests WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO.

Note that this is really a second nomination for Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman. Speedy deletion for this repost following that AFD was declined by an admin, though apparently nothing has been added to deleted article to suggest notability has been better asserted this time around. MuffledThud (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G4. No significant improvement over previous article.  37 references and none of them do much to establish the notability of this person.  Seemingly reliable sources such as the LA Times have broken links (making verification difficult) many resources are primary sources and odd ones to use as references (Prince lyrics?) RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response: Erroneous citation is noted (Prince), and has been removed. Re: the LA Times link, I only see one listed, and it's working just fine.
 * Los Angeles Times. Richardson, Lisa.- 2 Hope to Unseat Inglewood's Longtime Mayor - Election: City Council's Garland Hardeman and Judith Dunlap. November 6, 1994 Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response
 * Keep: As stated on the discussion page for Markus Eliance, these are the changes that have been made since the AFD for Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman.


 * REFERENCES:
 * 1. Article from CWG Magazine pulled from Google News Archive - published January 28th, 2010 (Added to opening bio as citation for Chicks With Guns Magazine)
 * 2. Article from CollegeHumor.com - published January 21, 2010 (Added to alias to as ciation for published work under Jake McCaine)


 * Note: It has been brought to my attention that despite the appearance of his name in Google News Archive, that it still does not alone merit notability due to the sources being WP:Primary sources:. However, I have found other secondary references regarding his music photography, and have cited under the section Your Proof It Happened.


 * 1. SerenaRyder.com - 'Serena stole the show' - live review.
 * 2. ReverbNation.com - Letters Burning: Press.
 * 3. DatNewCudi.com - Photos: Kid Cudi & Guests Live at Club Nokia, LA
 * If these secondary sources are invalid, then I will voluntarily move the article back to a sandbox until the required sources become available. Again, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: We've already established this, via the comment on Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman: I can accept that. I just spent the last hour and a half reading all the articles on notability, COI, Walled Gardens, proper sourcing, Google searches, etc. I do now have a better understanding of how all this works. To take the mystery out of all this, yes it is an AUTOBIO of sorts, edited by Livewire legend and myself. I found the articles Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability and Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of not only humourous, but quite helpful. Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I've moved your last comment here, and reverted the strikeout you just did on my rationale for deletion. This is oddly similar to what User:Livewire legend did the last AFD.  Please don't edit other editors' comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines for why it's a bad idea. MuffledThud (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why am I being brought into this? :) Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I should note that the information from the early and personal life was pulled from the subjects IMDB page (not sure how or if that counts in regards to a reference for biographical info), as well as a Google search on the subjects birth name. This information was not pulled from thin air. Whatever was available was what was used.


 * As far as the strikeout, understood. Although I should point out that in the last AFD, the "strikethrough fest" was intiated by User:MuffledThud (while emphasizing a retraction of the offer to userfy); I believe LiveWire Legend was just following your example.
 * Archer Drezelan (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding strikethroughs to your own comments is perfectly OK: editing other users' comments is not. MuffledThud (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't mean any disrespect by that, by the way. Livewire legend (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: As the page is being continuously updated, and there has been no further protest from the admins, I plead that the AFD be removed, and the article remain active. Archer Drezelan (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I can see. here's what's been added since the last AFD:
 * links to articles about other people, with photo credits to Markus Eliance
 * a referenced paragraph on Lucas Hardemann auditioning twice in childhoof for a role on Nickelodeon
 * No further secondary sources have been added showing notability per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. This is a repost (with minor changes) of an article that was previously deleted following an AFD, with nothing to indicate that it will meet notability guidelines anytime soon. The only dissenting view so far to the proposed speedy deletion per G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion has been from the original creator(s) of the article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Self-promotional, most likely written, at least in part, by subject himself. Evalpor (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to point out that while the changes are indeed small, the changes that have been made do mark notability according to WP:CREATIVE. If if's a matter of the amount of notability, then I would agree to move the page back to the sandbox until there is "enough" notability to your liking.


 * Secondly, regardless of who wrote the article, unless you can show an example of bias in the writing, I don't see how it would be labeled as self-promotional. It looks pretty straightfoward.


 * Lastly, As a support to my argument for keeping the article active, I included a discussion from an admin, User:Philippe's [| talk page about the article]:

"Hi - actually, I sat and thought about this one for a while: it is my opinion that this meets notability guidelines, regardless of the previous AFD. The major point to me is that he's been published in notable publications. So, while I would seriously have preferred a DRV on it, I don't think it qualifies for speedy delete. - Philippe 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) "

Any opposing or supporting comments are welcome. Archer Drezelan (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment My !vote is unchanged, I still dont see this subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. A footnote that links to a Google News search does nothing to establish notability.  The LA Times link works now, but it doesn't mention the subject of this article so I'm not sure what notability we are supposed to gain from that reference.  Actually, most of these "references" do not even mention Markus Eliance and one only lists the name in a photo credit which is a pretty long way from this person being the primary subject of the article as is required by notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite everything, he still doesn't appear to be notable under the guidelines. Citations that prove other facts don't go towards significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The definition of "Significant coverage" is debatable under the guidelines. As User:Archer Drezelan mentioned, the argument now seems to be circling around "how notable" the subject is, as opposed to the fact that he is notable in the first place. If the motion to delete is based off a consensus that there's not enough information to satisfy the tastes of MuffledThud, RadioFan, Bejnar, and Evalpor, I disagree with the decision. Based on the comment made by admin Philippe, clearly the sentiment is not unanimous. However, the fact of the matter is there's no getting past the WP:CREATIVE doctrine set forth by the Wikipedian council.
 * My vote is still to keep; if it must be removed, just leave it in Archer Drezelan's sandbox.

-- LiveWire Legend talk21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've read the article, looked through the sources and perused this discussion, and I don't see anything which makes this person notable per our guidelines, including WP:CREATIVE. Wine Guy  ~Talk  00:59, 7 March 2010 (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.