Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Montecrossa (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--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Montecrossa[edit]

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

Blatant promotion sourced to blogs, listings, primary and unreliable sources. A search found the usual press releases, promo, facebook, videos but nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but not much convincingly good. Pinging past users Whpq and Ism schism. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To make it easier to read, I removed unsourced info. Now we can see what remains. What remains is a whole lot of self-published books and music and art. The "publisher" (Mirapuri) publishes solely Michel Montecrossa works. (Well, there may be some others) There are no "instructions to authors" that most publishers would have -- in other words, they aren't open to other authors or musicians. The text that I removed was grossly promotional (and some remains; I didn't think it worth while doing a full edit). Given the promo machine that this person is, it may be necessary to salt this one. I would expect to see it come back in some form. LaMona (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors, in particular, LaMona's excellent summation. Searches turned up little.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 27 October 2015 (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.