Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Visionary

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. I won't oppose to recreation with sourcing and avoiding copyright issues. Yanksox 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Visionary

Found while patrolling for spam on #wikipedia-spam on the freenode network. Any opinions?] —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to vote keep with cleanup on this one, google search does seem to turn up secondary sources including the Montreal Mirror. Definitely needs work though. Seraphimblade 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very week KEEP - only with a huge cleanup, POV work, and secondary sources.SkierRMH 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple independent sources. The only source is his record label. If there are verifiable and reliable independent sources, they belong in the article. Edison 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on how the article is written, I an't even tell if it's notable or not. Needs a COMPLETE cleanup before we decide. --Wizardman 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Y.Ichiro (会話) 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Despite this source, my feeling is that he isn't notable enough to be included. He might be experienced and talented, but I still have the impression that he is more or less a 'local' phenomenon. If sources can be found to prove that he has gained nationwide coverage more than just a few times, I'd reconsider. The Montreal Mirror has approx 285.000 readers (their own estimate), but for a nation with a population of more than 30 million this is rather low in my eyes. Also, I've found nothing to indicate that this paper has a particular position within the music culture in Toronto, so I'd say delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: On checking the user who started the article, I discovered this[1] (see bottom of the page). This is possibly a copyvio, and the image is untagged as well. I will tag the article appropriately. Bjelleklang - talk 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete for possible copyright infringement. 38.100.34.2 01:15, 25 November 2006 (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.