Deletion of Mick Luter (3rd nomination)

Comment: 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMO||WP:COI)

Comment: OK, you got me there.  So I checked if this meets .  ''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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSICBIO)

Comment: as not otability (people)|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:PROVEIT||WP:notability)

Comment: as not meeting .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSICBIO)

Comment: as has significant coverage in regional reliable sources such as The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times so passes  imv
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)