Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Maek (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Maek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable wannabe. Sources are flaky. TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

& possible a speedy candidate as the recreation of an article deleted after discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as, although this may not be convincing enough for G4 because he has a new release this year, and of course that's not to say at all there's notability and better improvements here, but simply still none of this current ≤article satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Jason Maek is incredibly relevant. I have no idea how this is a discussion. He is a well accomplished musician and "operates the largest electronic music record label in the Midwest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akia chenise (talk • contribs) — Akia chenise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Fails to pass muster as far as I can see, doesn't have sufficient to satisfy notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being accomplished doesn't equal notability. References are indeed flakey: write-ups in student run media; profiles on music blogs/websites that solicit contributions from the subject; a career advice profile on a job search site. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ShelbyMarion's comment hits the nail on the head: accomplished and notable are not synonymous. Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to find sources to give this artist notability, but there just aren't any reliable ones. Accomplished, but non-notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2016 (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.