Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Turco

:{{la|Mike Turco}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Turco Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mike Turco}})

Notability is not inherited. Was unable to find sources. He has worked on some notable records, but mostly in technical aspects (mixing, sound engineer). He does not appear to have produced any notable albums or written any notable songs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete-per nom. I wanted to put a BLP prod but it does have sources. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• comment If you follow the articles link to :Category:Canadian_audio_engineers you will find many that look much like this, with only one or two not very strong sources. I've run into this before for other categories with "Canadian" in the name, and it tells me that there are folks who are working to complete certain categories of articles. However, there doesn't seem to be adherence to notability or reliable sources. Is there a solution other than deleting the occasional individual article, while others are probably being created? I'm seeing a certain "one step forward, two back" in this. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know much about any such pattern, but given the article creator's contributions and the message left on my talk page, I would say that this was an independent effort. I think in general we need to be clearer about notability policies, and also point out that categories and lists are in no way meant to be exhaustive. Perhaps some kind of header text in categories. Anyways, in the meantime, I think deleting articles that fail notability guidelines and improving articles that pass them is our best bet. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as not convincing of solid convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.