Deletion of Michael Jason Allen

Comment: A masterwork of promotional prose without a single wp:RS|reliable source, and a list of unreliable ones, about half of them IMDB, which is generally /IMDB#Questionable_resources|not considered a reliable source, and other sources, iTunes and the subject's own website, which are neither independent nor reliable for establishing notability. By definition, the subject of the article fails the wp:N|Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The article subject also does not meet criteria in: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals or Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. If sufficient reliable and independent sources were found to justify keeping the article, it would still require a top-to-bottom rewrite to cleanse it of an egregiously promotional tone, which violates the fundamental Wikipedia principle: wp:NPOV|neutral point of view. The author of the article admits on this Discussion page that, "I have been close to his career for many years and have witnessed his accomplishments and personal facts from him personally," which, regrettably, is evidence of violation of another basic Wikipedia policy: wp:NOR|no original research, which is not a permissable substitute for reliable independent sources, because it can not be wp:V|verified by readers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as lacking significant coverage in |reliable, third-party sources, per |general notability criteria. No evidence of satisfying  or  notability guidelines. The subject is an independent filmmaker, musician and bit player, but has not yet received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's great the subject won some small film fest awards, but the only source I've found so far that is not affiliated or a PR site is http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/17/20090217wvpeomovie0217.html this blurb in the ''Arizona Republic''. If {{u|AtlasAlmanac}} can provide more significant, ''sourced'' coverage, notability may be clearer. From the intimate, in depth (unsourced) coverage and the defensive tone above (as well as allegedly creating :File:Michael Jason Allen.jpg|this promotional photo), I feel AtlasAlmanac may have external connections with the subject, and would refer them to Wikipedia's |Conflict of interest guidelines and policy on |paid contribution disclosure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:COI||WP:PAID)