Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna D'Amico (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna D'Amico

AfDs for this article:

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

Brenna D'Amico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. References are passing mentions of having acting roles, not signifiant coverage. Doesn't have multiple significant roles. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna D'Amico indicated TOOSOON and result was to move to draft space. This should be done for this version too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She has star billing including poster credits on various new movies including The Never List, Night Night. These movies didn't even exist yet when the last AfC happened. Definitely feels like it passes WP:NACTOR at this point.
Was the article a WP:STUB when created, yes, but with the additional refs from WP:RS now, it is clear it passes the actor notability and just needs a moment to flesh out, either in the article, or moved into draft. Raladic (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has to have a major role, the films must be themselves notable (a Tubi original almost certainly isn't that), and she still needs to have significant independent coverage herself, as per WP:BASIC. None of those conditions are met right now – none of the sources at the article currently get the subject past WP:BASIC. I still think this is "delete", but if someone wants to "draftify" it's not unreasonable. But she is not notable enough for an article right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think her role in the works mentioned above are significant enough, and sufficient in number, for her to pass WP:NACTOR. I recognise this is point on which there is legitimate disagreement, and the counter arguments above are reasonable, hence my "weak" !vote CT55555(talk) 11:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify leaning very weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON, but getting there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep alternatively draftify In view of the sources added by Raladic I change my vote from Draftify leaning very weak keep. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draft. My main problem is that the Deadline source is listing almost every role. If she was notable enough, there would be sources stating the fact. If only one source is capable of listing her credits, then she isn't notable yet. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great point. And she certainly doesn't appear to get past the "passing mentions" guidance either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just spent some time doing the actual research and found a whole bunch of magazine coverage including a print magazine cover article in 2021 featuring her, so she definitely passes WP:SIGCOV based on the amount of featured articles and interviews, including a live TV interview on ABC 7 Chicago, and magazines from outside the US that I have now added to the article.
    It is also clearer now that in the two feature films "The Never List" and "Night Night" she had poster credit and main and leading roles, not just supporting roles and her upcoming roles in two announced movies, I believe it supports WP:NACTOR well beyond just her roles in the Descendants franchise.
    It was just that the article was nominated practically instantaneously after being put up (as a poorly sourced stub, that is).
    So per WP:BEFORE, the article could have been given a chance to develop using cleanup tags instead of immediate AfD nomination.
    Pinging @Callmemirela @Random person no 362478479 @CT55555 to please reassess with the new sources in the article. Raladic (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my vote from draftify leaning very weak keep to weak keep alternatively draftify. The main reason why I did not go all the way to keep is that the sources you added are almost all interviews. Interviews are routinely discounted in deletion discussions, because they are not (fully) independent (see WP:INTERVIEWS). I do not agree with this policy and think that the number of interviews demonstrates notability, alas it is not up to me. The second reason is that I am not convinced that the movies in which she has main roles are notable enough to confer notability on the actors involved. So while I believe that someone like D'Amico should qualify for Wikipedia, I am not entirely convinced that she does given current criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to change my vote to draft instead of delete. Per Random person no 36247879, the sources are repeated. I feel as if this doesn't notability yet, especially if one of the sources to list her credits is an interview. For example, I google Jennifer Lawrence's credits, and I'll have platoon of sources from Variety, Deadline, People, Forbes, NY Times, and Vogue to name a few. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps there wasn't enough coverage of her in 2018 for the first AFD, but there seems to be enough now to show the subject is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Roles in Descendants movies and sufficient sources, as discussed above. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not a "lead" in the Descendants film series – her role was secondary. She is arguably a "lead" in Crushed, but that's a "Tubi original film" which is hardly a mainline "notable" role (IOW, it's the kind of TV movie that is going to be completely ignored in other media). When you take out passing mentions, teen gossip mags and interviews (which many feel, for better or worse, do not contribute to notability), you are left with a single profile in the Chicago Sun Times. I could see "draftify" as a vote here. But the subject does not credibly pass WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC still. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion did not appear on any daily log page; I have listed it for the current day. --Finngall talk 16:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She's in the tubi thing and the Descendants movies, seems like a decent enough case for GNG. She isn't "woman on bench in background" or "Woman #3 at coffee shop", like most of these ACTOR ones we see at GNG, she has a named role in at least 3 movies. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brenna_D%27Amico_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1158868790"