Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Andrews

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Andrews[edit]

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

Ugh, had to make a username.

The reason I propose this article for deletion is because the entire history stinks of sockpuppetry.

That is, it feels as if the artist themselves had a close connection with the creation of the page.

Many of the edit histories of the early contributors to this article suggests some form of corporatised approach to curation of wikipedia pages.

User:MarnetteD argued, and somewhat reasonably I guess, that it cannot be speedily deleted due to the sources. However, it is known that people can buy media articles, and I believe such an attitude can be extended to the purchase/directive-to-specific-people to create a wikipedia page.

I will let others assess the worthiness of this article. I will say I did not know who this person was prior to this page showing up on the recent edit log, and I was greatly disturbed to see that this page only exists due to the artist-in-question's willingness to expend their credit line to gain some recognition.

Comment I have formatted this discussion that was created by RandoUsername. No opinion on the article at this point. Huon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's extremely little coverage in reliable secondary sources, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Major parts of the article, including all the more recent information, are unreferenced. The closest the article comes to establishing notability is the single on the Adult/R&B chart, but I don't think that, in the absence of supporting media coverage, a single song on a minor Billboard sub-chart is enough to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I’m very borderline on this. I’m not necessarily opposed to a subject creating their own page if it is written in a objective voice and there are strong sources to back it up. The nominator is 100% correct about the feebleness of these sources. Despite the perceived prestige of some of these landing pages (NME, MTV, Billboard, etc.) they are within the realm of “submit your content” type coverage that these entities provide for users. It is all trivial, press-releases, lists, and—yes—blatant self-promotional. I don’t see any significant, third party coverage. That said, a billboard charting single counts for something. It is a strong qualifier per WP:MUSIC guidelines--but not automatic. I disagree with editors who consider any criteria met as entitlement for an article. I strongly support the tenants of “may" be notable rather than “is” notable. As it stands right now a sole chart appearance is all this subject has going for it. If there was just one credible, independent example of coverage to add weight to this achievement, it would be just barely enough to get me to change my ivote to “Keep.” ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2017 (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.