Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaqlyn

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqlyn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The article is almost entirely based on promotional or primary sources (Destina, mDaily, MalaysianUpdates, Suara). The only independent source (Utusan Malaysia) provides a brief event announcement with no in-depth coverage or critical analysis. None of the cited sources offer significant, independent, or sustained coverage that would establish encyclopedic notability. Overall, the subject appears to have received only routine publicity for a debut single, not meeting the threshold for inclusion. Acrom12 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Austria. Wikishovel (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is my assessment of the sources currently cited in the article. After reviewing each reference for reliability, independence, and significant coverage, I found that all available material is either promotional, primary, or routine event reporting. None provide the kind of in-depth, independent analysis required to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.

Source assessment table
Source	Independence	Reliability	Depth / Significance	Count source toward GNG?
mDaily	✖ No	✖ No – entertainment blog, lacks editorial oversight	✖ Routine announcement, rewritten from press release, no analysis	✖ No
MalaysianUpdates	✖ No	✖ No – aggregator/promotional site	✖ Repeats label PR content, no critical coverage	✖ No
Utusan Malaysia	✔ Yes	✔ Yes – established mainstream newspaper	✖ Short event announcement, lacks depth or analysis	✖ No
DestinaAsia	✖ No – lifestyle/promotional outlet	✖ No – promotional tone, lightly edited press release	✖ No in-depth coverage, mirrors PR	✖ No
Suara.tv	~ Somewhat – independent but light entertainment outlet	⚠️ Variable reliability; not major media	✖ Narrative and promotional tone, limited depth	✖ No

This table assesses the five cited sources in the Jaqlyn article. All but Utusan Malaysia are non-independent or PR-based. Even the Utusan piece is a brief event announcement with no significant analysis. Therefore, none meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria for notability.Acrom12 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source assessment above which clearly demonstrates a failure of notability and reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2025 (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.