Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Amy

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Amy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for musicians or journalists. The notability claim on offer here is that he and his work exist, and the content is heavily reference bombed to footnotes of the "music verifying its own existence on Bandcamp, YouTube, Spotify or the self-published websites of himself or his collaborators" and/or "magazine articles where he was the bylined author and not the subject under discussion" varieties, which are not support for notability.
As always, you do not make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by primary sourcing his work to itself as proof that it exists -- you make a person notable enough for inclusion by sourcing his work to third party coverage and analysis about his work, in real media independent of himself, as proof that it has been externally validated as significant, but virtually none of the sources here represent WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I’m not really sure on this one. Looking more throughly at the sources, the sources aren’t that good. Sahaib (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat. I don't think I was able to find a single RS out of the 76 references. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No reliable sources are available to qualify WP:BASIC. Jaysonsands (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything significant that looked like IRS. Current article looks like a primary reference bomb. Aoziwe (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2021 (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.