Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Michelle

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. Tone 07:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Michelle

[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)

WP:GNG Only 4 sources, all of which are gossip sites. No notability except one low-budget Netflix film and a small role on Dance Moms, probably written by someone close to the subject as promotion of the subject. Rcul4u998 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Saif. Similar to that page, the subject of the article has appeared in one "major" work (a Netflix production) and has not garnered the level of attention from reliable sources to merit a page at this time. KidAd (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that AfD was "Redirect", so citing it as a reason to delete is a bit inconsistent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Redirect" closer to "Delete" than "Keep" from the perspective of AfD? "Keep" means an article meets at least one WP:N standard and should be kept as a standalone article, while "Delete", "Redirect" and (to a lesser extent) "Merge" are generally proposed as actions when the topic does not meet any notability guideline. Unless expressly stated, an AfD being closed as "Delete" does not preclude a redirect from being created at that article title as long as it's appropriate. feminist (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is receiving 20,000 views a day regardless of whether the film was low budget. Ava has been on television for 4 years and there has been plenty of media coverage. Unfortunately living in the UK, some American newspapers are blocking my accessing them, no idea why.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one could argue that she is receiving so many views only because of the netflix film she has starred in. Having one movie credit and a small recurring role on one tv series does not make a subject notable, especially when the majority of the notable sources that do exists for her are within the context of the single film. While I don't doubt she may become more notable in the future, I do think this article is a few years premature... I mean, the article consists of just 12 sentences of content... I think it would need to be majorly majorly expanded to prove notability. Rcul4u998 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Kevin McMahon requested I look at this article. At first, I thought she would be TOOSOON. But I did some digging and she has been covered in Reliable Sources over the course of several years. Bustle, Teen Vogue, MetroWest Daily News (local source) and People.com are reliable sources. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she has received significant coverage from her role in Tall Girl is never the question. The main question is whether this topic would be better covered in the Tall Girl article rather than in a standalone article. A number of sources currently in this article are quite questionable from a reliability perspective, but this Pop Culture article currently cited looks quite decent as a source and is from when she was still known as Ava Cota. Keep as there is more to her that we can write about than her role in the Netflix rom-com. feminist (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a news search which brings back many hits. The question of whether the article should be merged / redirected to Tall Girl can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main concern people have with this article is WP:BLP1E, and unfortunately most news coverage right now doesn't solve that problem. We have to focus more on older sources that don't relate to Tall Girl. feminist (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG including the PopCulture piece which is before Tall Girl, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2019 (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.