Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mic embalta3

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mic embalta3

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

I discovered this page on NPP and it was in a bit of a state. I cleaned it up so that it can at least be read, but I'm not convinced the subject is notable. A google search shows loads of twittery/facebookish self-published stuff, along with a fair few passing mentions, but I can't find anything truly non-trivial written about him, and so fails WP:GNG. He hasn't had any roles in major feature-length productions, doesn't appear to have a dedicated fan base and his work isn't unique or innovative, and so he also fails WP:ENT. Overall, I feel this is a little-known radio personality, and this article is basically just promotion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to turn up anything to establish notability either. Delete per nom. Specs112 t c 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"removed an obnoxious template placed here by User:Anarchangel"--DBig Xray 21:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text of template: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure.Anarchangel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't had a chance to thoroughly search for sources but I have restored the bulk of the article's text which was deleted without explanation. I've also done some cleanup and added categories. The text is still a bit of a mess and the article lacks inline citations but those are a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that appears to have been my fault. I saw that the AfD template had been removed and so I just reverted to what I thought was the last "stable" version; I didn't realise there was a lot of content that had been added in the meantime. Anyway, I don't think it affects the nomination at all. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 7. Snotbot t • c » 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations. Stream of names. Non-notable content. Delete unless substantial upgrade. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2012 (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.