Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Luter (3rd 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 no consensus. Still. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Luter[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Survived AfD in 2013 and 2014 but I still can’t find reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a respected Chicago rapper who has been written about by respected local Chicago sources. Not much beyond that, though... Caro7200 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the prior AFD pointed out some coverage this individual received some years ago in some of Chicago's newspapers, there does not appear to be any coverage beyond that. As mentioned above, he looks like he may have had some local notability within Chicago itself, but never garnered any kind of widespread notability outside of his home city. There is virtually nothing else I can find on him of any substance that has been written since then. Rorshacma (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is permanent. As I stated in the 2nd AFD, I stand behind my 1st AFD reasoning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in regional reliable sources such as The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times so passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. As a BLP, I could not find enough significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, now and certainly not then, to back up claims of notability. One, and possible even two main sources, do not point that a subject is worthy of encyclopedia coverage and indicate the subject might be better represented in some parent article. I had to look back at the other AFD nominations since the mentioning editor's comments meant I had to. The previous nominations were not closed as clearly notable but as no consensus thus a default keep. What I found was mention of some sources (in the AFD's), that were dubious and long gone, and a search did not produce anything near the criteria mandated of being notable. While more local (not even really regional) coverage that is SUSTAINED gives a better indication of notability "just" one or two occurrences of being reported in a Chicago media does not in itself prove notability that we often cite as needing significant coverage in "multiple" reliable sources, because, coverage in a source specifically from the area of the subject (both that are listed), would be less than ideal for encyclopedic coverage alone as all things "Chicago" would be covered in them leading to source bias. Just because a subject receives "some coverage" does not mean they are notable for inclusion of a stand alone article. There is no timeline to expanding articles but when notability is contested, and a minimum search gives no positive results, the burden of proof would be on those seeking inclusion. This has happened multiple times with no improvements, and there are still several inline cite tags, that means at a point (likely long past) all that material could be removed leaving very little in the article. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comments: The Chicago Tribune source on the article is local coverage that includes a very clear promotional plug and COI concerning the supposed independence of the source. Wanting to keep the article as "all things Chicago", when the source for notability is a clear violation of policy, becomes an issue with inclusion that "must" be considered. There is a difference in a reliable source and a reliable source with an agenda beyond unbiased reporting. At the end of the article the "plug" is:

Mick Luter

No-holds-barred rap

When: 8:30 p.m. Tuesday

Where: Subterranean, 2011 North Ave.

Price: $10 (21+); 773-278-6600 or ticketweb.com

Clifton Roy & Folkstringer

Emo bluegrass?

When: 9 p.m. Thursday

Where: Otto's, 118 E. Lincoln Hwy., DeKalb

Price: $8 (21+); 815-758-2715 or ticketweb.com -- Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Have you ever read a newspaper? It is extremely standard practice for a newspaper covering a performer making a nearby appearance to list the relevant details of that appearance, including the cost and availability of tickets. It's no more a "promotional" plug or a conflict of interest than the New York Times, when it reviews a play, listing the theater where the play is being performed and the price of tickets. Virtually every newspaper running book reviews lists similar information about he book, including the publisher and list price. This argument is utterly, unredeemably ridiculous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Passing mention, even in RSs, does not constitute significant coverage. This bio was first nominated for deletion in 2013. Seven years later coverage to meet inclusion standards is still lacking. The bio can be recreated if he meets it in the future. Blue Riband► 16:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG requirements, as per the previous AFD discussions. None of the editors who purport to have complied with WP:BEFORE turned up the fact that the subject was signed to a major label recording contract. The claim that the Chicago Tribune source should be ignored as promotional is rooted in profound ignorance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Recording contract with whom and is there a citation? Please assume good faith of the input of the other editors here. The political comments are out-of-scope regarding this topic. Blue Riband► 01:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you should read the referenced content I added to the article rather than casually casting aspersions in inappropriate directions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. OK, you got me there. So I checked if this meets WP:MUSICBIO. Music Nation is just an online competition that doesn't rise to even merit its own stand alone article. His ONE recording is an obscure label Stay Humble Entertainment. Those achievements go back to 2002. RSs don't indicate broad geographic coverage. (Something like aspiring to be a state governor but never winning a election above township councilman.) He's in a tough business but didn't quite make it to big time notability. Blue Riband► 06:11, 23 March 2020 (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.