Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Jackson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jess Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined two speedies on this article (A7 and G11) because they didn't seem to apply. However, I'm having major issues finding any mention of this guy in reliable sources, and am suspecting a hoax. He has a bit of a common name (Jesse Jackson, and Jess Stonestreet Jackson, Jr.) so that clouds things a bit. However, none of the references direct to pages mentioning him, and I'm finding very little on Google. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this particular person in depth. I found lots of articles about California wine producer Jess Jackson. Maybe we should have an article about him instead. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I herby request that the page not be deleted. I am responsible for starting this page and have to apologize for the lack of citations and references. It was due to the lack of my expertise within using wikipedia. I have educated myself on the usage of wikipedia and have began adding citations and references within the page. I assure you you that I will continue to do so until the page see's fit to comply with wikipedia's standards. Thank you --Je55 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — Je55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This page should definitely not be deleted as jess jackson is a genuine record producer within the music industry and is currently active. --Doctorjazzer (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Doctorjazzer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment It appears almost certain that both Je55 and Doctorjazzer are single purpose accounts set up for the main purpose of editing Jess Jackson and closely related articles. Accordingly, their opinions expressed here should carry less weight. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged them as such. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a not noteable producer and also an unsourced page of this so called producer. STATic message me! 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is he not "Notable" when he is a multi platinum selling producer and just yesterday Tyga (his artist he works with mostly) posted a song produced by him to over two miillion fans on his Facebook page. see Tyga on facebook. I would also like to state that the whole reason this page even being discussed for deletion is due to STATic becoming disgruntled at two changes I made to his changes on Tyga_discography. He then undid my changes and went on to research my other pages, he came after the Jess_Jackson page I have been building up. I feel that if you look into his behavior you will see that its vindictive in nature. Needless to say, I am still looking at more sources of notoriety and will continue to add them as discovered. I appreciate all of your input on the matter. --Je55 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Je55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Response Notability on Wikipedia is defined as in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources of Jess Jackson himself. A large number of Facebook fans for an artist he produces doesn't count. If you provide evidence of that level of coverage in reliable sources, then we will agree that he is notable. The motivations of other editors do not matter - what matters are what the reliable sources say. That's our policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I must point out that I'm a bit concerned that it is so difficult to find reliable sources covering a producer of this supposed level of fame (producer of Tyga, created a song that birthed UK Garage, performing alongside big-name artists, music featured on MTV and Bravo shows, and producing a platinum album). A Google search for "Jess Jackson producer" (to avoid all of the hits regarding the other Jess Jackson) turns up the Wikipedia article, his official page, a Twitter account, a Facebook fan page, two Wikipedia mirrors, a Spokeo page, a site called TrueKnowledge, a Yahoo! Answers-type site, and a SoundClick page. All of these are primary sources or unreliable sources. A Google News search with the same search query turns up nothing whatsoever. All of this just screams hoax to me. Surely a producer/artist of this caliber would have at least a magazine article or two somewhere. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 06:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was concerned about hoax-ness too; it is at least the case that Tyga's official facebook page mentions a Jess Jackson (including the aforementioned posting of a song produced by Jess Jackson [1]). But if it is true, does that make him notable? peachlette (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I must point out that I'm a bit concerned that it is so difficult to find reliable sources covering a producer of this supposed level of fame (producer of Tyga, created a song that birthed UK Garage, performing alongside big-name artists, music featured on MTV and Bravo shows, and producing a platinum album). A Google search for "Jess Jackson producer" (to avoid all of the hits regarding the other Jess Jackson) turns up the Wikipedia article, his official page, a Twitter account, a Facebook fan page, two Wikipedia mirrors, a Spokeo page, a site called TrueKnowledge, a Yahoo! Answers-type site, and a SoundClick page. All of these are primary sources or unreliable sources. A Google News search with the same search query turns up nothing whatsoever. All of this just screams hoax to me. Surely a producer/artist of this caliber would have at least a magazine article or two somewhere. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 06:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Notability on Wikipedia is defined as in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources of Jess Jackson himself. A large number of Facebook fans for an artist he produces doesn't count. If you provide evidence of that level of coverage in reliable sources, then we will agree that he is notable. The motivations of other editors do not matter - what matters are what the reliable sources say. That's our policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. verifiability is also an issue. The blizzard of references sprinkled into the article are rather dubious. Many are links from unreliable sources including one from Wikipedia which I removed. Other references are to sites where he isn't mentioned and thus do not verify anything. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (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.