Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Luter (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Otr500, 07:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:BLP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:PROVEIT||WP:notability (Wikipedia:Notability)