Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auli'i Cravalho

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. Discussion is a bit light on policy based arguments, but rough consensus is to keep. No prejudice against ongoing discussion to merge/redirect.Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auli'i Cravalho[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E that fails WP:NACTOR. If and when Cravalho receives coverage for other significant roles sometime in the future, the article of course can be recreated, but at this point in time, she notable only for starring in just one not yet released film. Sro23 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not sustained enough to pass the general notability guidelines by most interpretations. Since the film has not been released the one role is not enough for Cravalho to be propelled to fame that way. Anyway the main acting way to notability requires 2 films, not just one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines I was thinking of primarily apply to people involved in live-action film. A voice role like Cravalho will have in the film Moana does not even add towards notability as much as a live action role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with the above comments with regards to the actor's notability, for two main reasons.

- It has been noted that she has only starred in one as-yet-unreleased film. I would like to direct the other commentators' attention to the likes of Peter Ostrum who appeared in only one film (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, a big budget film, which featured Gene Wilder. Ostrum has never appeared in another film but has a reasonably long Wikipedia article. His film and Moana can be seen as having similarities, as in both cases a large budget is involved and the younger actor is in a film featuring someone very famous. In Cravalho's case, it is Dwayne Johnson, in Ostrum's it was Gene Wilder.

- Secondly, despite the fact Cravalho is currently an "unknown" actress, her Wikipedia page itself has been getting many daily views. On average, the Auli'i Cravalho page seems to be receiving ~700-900 views per day. In the week following the most recent trailer release for Moana (16th September - 23rd September 2016), the article was viewed 21,682 times. I also reject the idea that she should not have a Wikipedia because she has not appeared in other major productions. Actors such as Paul Reeve (of Superman fame) was relatively unknown until he received his role in Superman. There is clear evidence from the views on this page alone that there is a lot of interest in her as an actress. Moana is a major Disney film which will be released in around a month's time. To refer to the numbers of article views again, I note that the Moana (2016 film) is currently receiving ~ 5000 views per day, though it has received ~ 15,000 per day in the last few weeks.

To conclude, my position is that while Auli'i Cravalho is not yet famous, she is a notable person. There is a lot of interest in the movie and the actress which I believe will only increase in the weeks to come. I am not sure I understand the sense of deleting the article when it will likely be recreated by someone else when the film is closer to release (i.e. most likely within a month or so from now). The film is currently set to be released in at least 32 countries by the end of the year. Currently, it serves to compile information about a rising actress, who, in the next three months, is likely to become very well known. EmWinn —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, as well as the lack of WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage. Also Note the completely non policy based nature of the 'keep' !vote. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is directed at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and any others who believe my points to be not based on policy. I made my comments in relation to what had already been said by Sro23. If you read WP:BLP1E, you will see that the policy states all three requirements must be met for there to be a violation. My comments relate to the second requirement outlined, namely that the person is likely to remain widely unknown after the event. As I have already stated, I believe this is unlikely to be the case.

I would also appreciate someone (preferably Sro23) explaining how under requirement three of the above mentioned policy is violate by the article. I fail to see how the event is one of low importance (at least as far as films go). Cravalho plays the main character in the film. It seems to me that neither requirement two nor three is violated by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmWinn (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cravalho does not "play" the main character in the film, she "voices" the main character in the film. There is a very large difference. Also, the film has not been released yet, so comparing it to films that have already been released is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moana (2016 film). Any interest in Cravalho at this point would have to be related to her role in this film, which is not even going to be released more than a month. If and when there is more to say about her that isn't related to her role in Moana, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

CommentJohn Pack Lambert Thanks for your contributions. I think you misunderstood what I meant by play (perhaps a difference in the types of English we speak). I meant it as per the Oxford Dictionary online https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play under the 4th heading, play is defined as to "represent (a character) in a theatrical performance or a film", i.e. assuming the role of Moana, rather than that she physically appears in the film. You may also be interested in the video Walt Disney released on their YouTube channel "Casting Moana- Introducing Auli'i Cravalho" which features footage of the actress and currently has ~ 4 million views. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylCYlsjEK0

This will be my final comment on this AfD and I would like to comment generally on it. Firstly, thank you to everyone who commented or made suggestions. One thing I would like clarified (and maybe a more experienced Wikipedia editor can assist here) is why the Moana Auli'i page is up for deletion and the Moana (film) page is not. It seems many of the points that have made here could also apply to the film's page (notability, crystal ball etc).

I will watch this topic with interest when the film is released in ~ six weeks.

Again, thanks to anyone who contributed. Enjoy the rest of your weekend/upcoming week (depending on where you are in the world). :-) EmWinn (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or failing that redirect to the film. BLP1E is for otherwise non-notable people, but actors are public figures; substantial coverage of them is sufficient for inclusion even for just one role. Sandstein 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess WP:BLP1E doesn't apply since the individual is a public figure, but my concern remains that she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. I would be willing to support redirecting to Moana (2016 film) at this time. Sro23 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She clearly does not meet NACTOR point 1, which requires Multiple roles, however point 2 "has a large fan base of a significant cult following" does have some potential. However that will be hard to justify before the film is released. It does explain why we have an article on Ostrum as mentioned above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have become convinced that we have a wide enough number of articles from reliable sources to pass the GNG. Also, I think there is enough evidence of pre-release following that this one role will propel Cravalho into some level of significant following. Maybe not quite the level of Idina Menzell and what voicing the role of Elsa in Frozen has done for her career. OK, that is a horrible example, because Menzell had the lead role in rent on broadway back in 1996, and even in film had not only held that role in the film adaptation of rent but had also had the second highest female role in Enchanted. Frozen was her 8th role in film. So it is not comparable. Also, I doubt that Moana will reach the level of popularity of Frozen. Still, I think Cravalho has enough coverage to date to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moana as per Metropolitan90. -rayukk | talk 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Voice acting is acting. She's the lead in a Disney film soon to be released! Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She is currently only notable for the movie. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's somewhat notable at this moment, but only in the narrow and specific context of a movie that's not even been released yet. This is a crying example of being 'too soon'. I'd rather we wait to see what her actual career shapes up to be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fairly clear that a new major Disney film will be notable, and that the star of it will be also. Refusing to recognize this is an illustration of the overliteral misuse of NOTCRYSTAL. Some things don't need magical devices or guesswork, just obvious analogy. Pragmatically, the work involved in discussing it, removing it, and rewriting itis much greater than the work in letting it be and just keeping track of it. This is deletion process being used for the sake of deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep She's in a major movie with a lead role. Even if she only has this for her entire career, it's still a major role. Peter Ostrum had only one role, yet we have an article on him. Puget Sound (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (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.