Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Jenkins


 * 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. Sources provided here do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable 3rd party sources. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maya Jenkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines, sources are link to apple music, her twitter and her iMDB page. Single was just released on 12/2, so maybe WP:TOOSOON? Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete might become notable in the future but currently falls short of the notability requirements for biographical articles. Pichpich (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep - She is indeed eligible for inclusion on wikipedia. People are starting to attempt to impersonate her on social media pages, and according to website metadata, her name is being searched constantly. It seems fair that she has a wikipedia article letting people know her work history and current accomplishments, especially since wikipedia has become such a frequently used informational website. She is very popular on her social media accounts, and fans have asked on certain social media pages why they can't find her on wikipedia. It isn't too soon, and I honestly feel she is eligible. - WikiPR1234 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Social media is worthless as a source, anyone can get social media accounts. Our general notability guideline specifies that articles need to be based on multiple independent reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I didn't only say social media. That was ONE thing used to verify a statement that she made. I didn't know wikipedia contributors were so accusatory and hateful over a new entry. I am stating facts along with what I believe to be a great add to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPR1234 (talk • contribs)
 * We're not hateful over new entries, we just don't take kindly to people trying to use our site to advertise. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep : This page should be kept, because this actress is just as "notable" as countless other public figures (even if small) who have articles on Wikipedia. There are clearly sources to back up the things said in this article. The Internet Movie Database is the best way to verify films, work credits and other info for members of the entertainment industry, which she is. there is also a source here that was added (her twitter page) and that is reasonable, only because it verifies a statement that the actress made about her own music. her social media can be used to verify HER words. Jana424 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Jana242 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm guessing WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional entry created by subject's manager's assistant, fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find sufficient sources which would demonstrate encyclopedic notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough to demonstrate notability. Only one release, less than a week ago. Eagleash (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unable to locate any sources that would support keeping this article. It appears to be promotionalism. --  Dane talk  05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.