Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarkE Miller

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkE Miller[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Original and has sources sited. It qualifies to be in wiki.

Anyone with an objection to state the objection and why he/she thinks it doe not qualify.

NOTE:- Note all articles being considered for deletion are deleted.

Editor:-

Delete as fails WP:BIO, has no unaffiliated secondary sources. Dschslava (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for poor references and the clumsy defense presented above, indicative that someone has a personal stake in it per WP:OAS. Dkendr (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO. Original poster: please see WP:BIO for the criteria we are talking about here. Note that this is a discussion solely about the article as it stands at this moment, not the person, and this AfD is in no way a criticism of the article's subject: moreover, if suitable cites that meet the WP:BIO criteria can be found, either now or in the future, the article can be either kept or recreated as appropriate. The (uncited) Advocate reference comes closest, but since the article cited is not primarily about the subject, would just narrowly miss meeting the citation criteria for establishing notability. -- The Anome (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, as mentioned above, failure of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The lack of third-party sources is the real problem, and I haven't been able to find any substantial enough to change my opinion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Miller and his boyfriend are popular on social media, but the problem here is that being popular isn't something that gives notability on that basis alone. It's actually incredibly common for multiple YT personalities to fail notability guidelines, as mainstream sources tend to rarely cover them. When they do cover them, it tends to be of the "look at this video we found, isn't it funny/cute/terrible/etc" variety that isn't really considered to be in-depth coverage. My favorite example of how difficult it is to establish notability guidelines for YouTubers is PewDiePie. His article was repeatedly deleted up till March 2013, only months before he became the most subscribed person on YouTube, which gives you an idea of just how insanely hard it is to establish notability for social media personalities. Now Miller has received some mild coverage, but not really anything that's heavy enough to really be considered in-depth coverage. I tried finding coverage but there's just not much out there and I couldn't find anything to show that Miller was on the Advocates "40 under 40" list. Now the thing about him being associated with various acts and people is that being associated with someone isn't something that would automatically give notability on Wikipedia, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To show that these associations would give notability you'd have to show where Miller has received a lot of coverage about him being active with the various people. Also, a notable person making a comment about or even appearing on the channel doesn't mean that this makes the channel notable. Like the associations, this would have to be covered in independent and reliable sources. Unfortunately, the article was reliant on links to YT channels and other places that Wikipedia would not consider to be a RS in this situation. I did find some coverage here and there, but it's not enough to establish notability and it seems that the most coverage centered on them breaking a world record in 2014, but unfortunately world records aren't considered to be a major accomplishment that would warrant a keep on that basis alone. They did appear in a documentary, but the documentary doesn't seem to have garnered enough coverage to where that'd be considered notability giving either. I have no problem with this being userfied and cultivated for the future, but right now it's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing of its own solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 9 May 2016 (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.