Deletion of Jackson Li

Comment: I'd agree with the keep if there were references from independent reliable sources which backed up the claims made in the article. But there aren't, and I couldn't find any. Searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they  pass . The article could be deleted on notability grounds, but also as per , since it reads like a promo piece for the artist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DEL4)

Comment: Totally promotional article, which easily qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion #G11|G11. If the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which may be so, but sources showing that it is so have not been provided) then it will be better to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|delete this unsuitable article and write a better one if someone is willing to do so, but far too often we get people arguing to keep a crap article on the grounds that it "can be cleaned up", and then, when it is kept, show no interest whatever in actually cleaning it up. I have no doubt that the motives of editors making such arguments are honourable, but the practical effect is that we keep articles in a state which '''nobody''' thinks should be kept. As long as the article is spam it qualifies for deletion, and should not be kept on the basis of speculation about the merits of some hypothetical non-spam article which doesn't actually exist. ''The editor who uses the pseudonym
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)