Deletion of Jacob Alexander Figueroa (2nd nomination)

Comment: I do not have a powerful enough tool to cut through the reference bombing in this article. Tried half the stuff in the garage, but no luck. I think the only technique that would fix this article is . As a last resort in understanding exactly what this subject does, in order to assess notability , I tried an external web search. I could not find anything of note.  TNT is what is needed here-- but I think it would be better to just delete it and let an uninvolved person recreate it sometime in the future
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Notability is not a question of the things a person has done, it is a question of the quality of the sourcing he does or doesn't have ''about'' the things he's done. This article, however, is |reference bombed overwhelmingly to unreliable sources that are'not support for notability, such as YouTube and Vimeo videos, Yelp reviews, Twitter and Instagram posts, podcasts, Google Maps, Tumblr blogs and the |self-published websites of people or organizations he's directly affiliated with — and even the few citations that are actually to media still aren't cutting it, as very few of them are about Jacob Alexander Figueroa in any non-trivial way: most of them are here solely to verify tangential facts about other people without even mentioning Figueroa's name at all, and even the ones that do mention Figueroa also largely just namecheck his existence without saying anything particularly substantive or notable that would count toward getting him over . Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing: to earn an article on here, a person has to be the subject of a significant volume of journalistic coverage in real media, which independently analyzes and verifies and attests to the ''significance'' of his work, and virtually ''none'' of the sources here represent what's required.I should also note that the page creator tried to canvass me to come defend the article on the grounds of alleged homophobia — but y'all know I'm an openly gay man, and I'm not seeing a homophobia problem here: I'm seeing a "lack of valid notability-supporting |reliable sourcing" problem. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by being directly involved in the creation of their own sources: it's a thing journalists have to ''anoint'' them with by writing third party content about them in newspapers, magazines and books. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show much better sources that make his notability much more plainly apparent, but the sources present in this version simply aren't cutting the mustard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:SELFPUB||WP:GNG||WP:RS)