Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Raval

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) AnsrieJames9 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Raval[edit]

[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)

As per article: Fails WP:N (biographies). ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage available. TheChronium 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The actress is adding more reliable sources. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Actress is not notable per WP:ACTORS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She only gets any coverage because her parents were actors, she has done nothign of note and all we have is vapid gossip coverage. We maybe should have articles on her parents, but she is not notable. This is an example of the extreme presentism of Wikipedia, which causes 1989 to be the largest birth-year category, even though there are a whole slew of professions and routes to notability (academics, religious leaders, many politicians and there are more) which very rarely lead to someone being notable by age 32.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The individual in question has received extensive coverage in a number of reliable media sources, including CNN Philippines, The Manila Times, and The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Many of them have to do with her starring in Viva Films productions, not really gossip: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5]. I don't think subjective assessments of the figure's worth is really relevant to this discussion. I'm sure much coverage of Paris Hilton would similarly be criticized as "vapid gossip coverage" but that doesn't have anything to do with her notability, or the fact that she has received coverage that is NOT "vapid gossip coverage" (i.e. one doesn't cancel out the other). Moreover, if being the beneficiary of nepotism were a legitimate criterion for non-notability (and I can't find anything on any guideline that says so), half of Hollywood wouldn't be considered notable. Per WP:BIO, an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The individual in question has at least two lead roles in two Viva Films productions. They have also appeared in at least 6 different Viva Films productions, not to mention her appearances in ABS-CBN television series. I would also just like to remind: per WP:NOTE, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Therefore, however many references currently exist in the article in question is immaterial to questions of notability. Additionally, per WP: Multiple sources, "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." I have provided 5 sources. Koikefan (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see the difference in notability between Paris Hilton and AJ Raval then you probably have little to no understanding of Wikipedia's notability policies. It's not a matter of vapidness in the sources, it's a matter of significance and coverage in the sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that their basis for concluding someone as non-notable (existence of gossip coverage) is not a legitimate basis for making such a conclusion (if it is, please point me to the guideline) by using Paris Hilton as an example. I did not make a comparison between AJ Raval and Paris Hilton's notability, so please try to improve your reading comprehension before making sassy remarks at me. Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents. Those are not legitimate bases for dismissing someone as non-notable. The articles I linked to give significant coverage to this individual. Koikefan (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you linked to provide minimal trivial coverage. Several of them are about her role with Diego Loyzaga, which is not a significant role and is only brought up due to Diego Loyzaga. The other articles are about her famous parents. Neither case is valid as notability cannot be inherited. AJ Raval may be notable in the future after starring in more significant roles, but currently remains non-notable. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we must have different definitions of trivial or minimal. At least three of the articles are entirely about her, bordering on profiles. Also, she is literally the lead of the movie, with Loyzaga as her co-star, so of course they're going to be talked about together. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that she is "only brought up" because of Loyzaga. On the contrary, they are talked about together because they are the two leads of the movie. They literally appear in the movie poster together as they are the two leads of the film. I would also like to know how you can conclude a lead role in a Viva Films production is "not a significant role." If a lead role is not a significant role, then what to you is a significant role? Viva Films is the 2nd or 3rd largest movie production company in the Philippines. None of the articles I linked to are about her famous parents, unless you think mentioning her famous parents makes an article about her famous parents. I would also suggest that you don't use strawmen here as I have never once argued that notability is inherited. That's completely dishonest. Koikefan (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a strawman and not dishonest-you clearly said someone was ignoring that Raval has famous parents, which would only be relevant if notability could be inherited. Anyways you're right I have little basis for concluding that Viva Films production is not a significant role, other than it is only one role, and all of the sources focus in on that one role. I'll agree it's not as clear cut as I may have original thought, but right now I still do not see them passing WP:GNG. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misread my statement. My statement was (copy and pasting): "Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents." I enumerated their bases (notice I said bases and not basis) as 1. vapid gossip coverage and 2. that she has famous parents. The ignore solely refers to the "articles that do not meet that description"; "ignore" did not refer to famous parents. To address your point about the focus on one role, I will link here a few more articles that discuss another lead role of hers in a separate movie called Taya (this first link is another extensive profile): [6], [7], [8], [9].Koikefan (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand your statement if you're saying they dismissed Raval as non-notable for having famous parents. That is in fact an actual strawman argument, as only one person above mentioned Raval parent's and it was in reference to them having their own Wikipedia articles. Their statement is only an opinion on Raval's parents' articles, not on Raval's notability. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my statement because you were suggesting I argued that her famous parents have any bearing on her notability, when I said no such thing. You went so far as to imply that I think notability is inherited. As for the other person, they claimed that AJ Raval only gets coverage because "her parents were actors." Since none of us here are mind-readers or are capable of divining why authors write their articles, that's tantamount to dismissing someone's notability because they have famous parents, since it suggests, without evidence, that the coverage is based on the fame of her parents. How exactly is she supposed to ever be notable if all coverage of her is immediately assumed to be because of her parents, which is what the other person assumed? Can anybody here furnish evidence proving that the Philippine Star, Inquirer, or CNN coverage was only due to the fact that AJ Raval has parents that are famous actors? Koikefan (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the rationale for this conclusion? As stated prior, the individual has received media coverage from a number of reliable media sources. How can you then conclude she's not notable? Koikefan (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I hope whichever admin closes this discussion considers these sorts of votes to be votes without rationale. Merely saying someone is not notable enough, without explication, when at least 11 different reliable sources have been presented about her is quite something. May I remind: ""Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin." Koikefan (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources in the article seem reliable. Sources 1, 2 and 5 talk about her. Sources 5 to 7 talks about her role in certain movies. I also found some reliable sources about her and her career: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article: [17], in combination with the articles I've linked to, now means that AJ Raval has been referred to in nearly a dozen different reliable media sources, covering 2 lead roles and 1 supporting role, in three different movies. This goes above and beyond the three sources that is standard for rebutting challenges to notability. WP: Multiple sources: "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." Koikefan (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*:Keep Please keep this page because she is notable as an actress even though there aren't too many movies as the main role but she is still famous because in all her movies she is always the one to be noticed even if she is not the main star. and when it comes to being her influencer and being a youtuber, she is very noticeable. I always see the teenage girls who are my neighbors here in the computer shop watching Aj's vlog because the type they admire seems to want to imitate the beauty and sexiness of Aj. and at the tip, she's also very famous on tiktok, so I think she has a blue badge check on the tip. so maybe that's enough to be notable as an Actress and Influencer." Steezy Krazy (talk) 4:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock vote-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. This and this more than pass WP:GNG standards. Denying that these don't exist or don't pass WP:GNG needs a thorough explanation to convince why it does not. P.S. Dad Jeric Raval deserves a separate article for himself too. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NARTIST with sources presented by Koikefan and Astig, including the ones in the article. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2021 (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.