Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Ridley

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. (WP:SNOW) (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Ridley[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The role in Star Wars will be notable when that comes out, but now she only has a handful of minor roles. Beerest 2 Talk page 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do a Google search and you'll see that she already meets WP:GNG for significant coverage in multiple sources, as many publications are interested in who she is because of this high profile role. She's getting other work too (her first film comes out in August). The WP:POTENTIAL for this stub to grow as we learn more about her overweighs any TOOSOON concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep. People are going to be looking her up (and are already doing so). I don't think it's a violation of the crystal ball principle to consider that her having been cast for a part in Star Wars makes her inherently notable. Aridd (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it got 7,585 page views on April 29. Why take this consolidated information away from them? It's not the role that makes her notable, but the coverage about her and her getting the role that does. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as above. —scarecroe (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been cast in the lead of the biggest movie of the decade. The article needs work, but she is an important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewinmaine (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-She is notable enough, nothing wrong here. Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above, A Google search brings up alot of stuff & people will be searching her up, Not the most perfect article but IMO cleaning it up is the best solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's going to be a lead actress in a major movie. I agree that the article falls under WP:POTENTIAL. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a new agent now, and her previous Facebook page is rumored to have been taken down. Disney publicity flacks have apparently been hard at work to sell her as a newcomer. As Davey2010 says, a lot of people will be seeking info on Wikipedia.Lynxx2 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Considering the fact that she has important involvement with Star Wars Episode VII, and has been verified and legitimately announced as being so, her article must be kept. Sure, the details of Star Wars VII are scant currently, and there is the crystal ball rule which attempts to prevent too much future prediction and notability based off of something that has not happened yet. While Daisy Ridley was a virtual unknown until the announcement of her participation, I think that her close affiliation with the coming Star Wars film, and the fact that Star Wars is still a monolithic franchise, should be considered in the context of deciding to keep or delete the article. If the article does get deleted, which is highly doubtful since as of my posting there are no nay-saying votes, then it will have to be made later. However, in my opinion, Ridley is already notable enough for her own article here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This debate is one of the dumber things I've ever seen Wikipedia divided on. Who is the lunatic saying that a lead in a Star Wars movie isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia that has a lengthy entry on Sha Na Na? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.57.162 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:CIVIL, I'm sure the editor meant well in nominating. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep News broke this week; 20-something confirmed for major role in Star Wars VII http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2617679/Daisy-Ridleys-father-celebrates-daughters-leading-role-new-Star-Wars-movie.html ... most experience guest roles in UK TV http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5397459/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 .... With news, a lot of 'Who is?'. My thanks to originator of page, found partial answer here. Deletion consideration,Wikipedia takes a step back. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The female lead role in the third trilogy of Star Wars. Hektor (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - Confirmed, by numerous sources, as a lead role in a film which is expected to be very high-profile. The Daisy Ridley article had over 20,000 page views, yesterday. EP111 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (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.