Deletion of Richard Anthony Jay

Comment: There are enough sources that, taken together, seem to suggest reasonable notability for an independent source; foremost among these the mention of the album in Muso magazine and the inclusion in the Association of Independent Music's lineup. The playing on BBC3's "Late Junction" does not, to me, suggest notability considering the show is actually known for it's use of obscure music. Likewise, the New Age Top 40 has proven to be something of a can of worms to try and verify - if they are based on radio playtime, I suggest trying to establish notoriety based on  criteria 12. I had originally intended to vote "Weak keep" based on the above, however the fact that the British Phonographic Industry included one of his songs on a CD representative of British music to MIDEM, billed as the world's largest music industry trade fair, is really what decided this for me. There's obviously some notability there under  #10, per the compilation album clause. The inclusion by the A.I.M. also fits under this category. While that of itself would not be enough to warrant inclusion (as #10 itself says,) I think that this combined with the aforementioned is enough to warrant a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:MUSIC)

Comment: I'm neutral on this at the moment, primarily due to the New Age Recorder report of playtime. That said, I notice that Burningpetals is the name of Jay's band, website, and the .com of all advertised emails, as well as the site hosting a significant portion of the referenced sources. Also, all contributions up to this point by user:burningpetals appear to be solely on the article under discussion. Burning, in the interest of disclosure, would it be safe to say that you have a |vested interest in the subject matter
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)