Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Saif

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 redirect to 13 Reasons Why. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Saif[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)

An actress that has only one noble role, see 13 Reasons Why, does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. She has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. No large fan base or a significant "cult" following nor made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. WP:TOOSOON -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant media coverage for her starring role in a popular TV series. KidAd (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the article (and citations) is about a single social media incident. Take that incident (which is pretty common these days) away, and there's not much left: "Young actress has done a little work." It's true we have many articles which have even less notability, but that's no reason to let this one off. ubiquity (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ubiquity. And, while I am incapable of contesting that she starred in a major TV show, the guideline requires multiple major roles in multiple major productions. She has had 1 role. Regardless of how major it was, she cannot have multiple major roles in multiple major productions. Rockphed (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 13 Reasons Why where her name appears in the cast list - not notable enough for a stand alone article; does not meet WP:NACTOR - Epinoia (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 13 Reasons Why. WP:TOOSOON for her to meet WP:NACTOR, as that show was her first and so far only significant role, as far as I can tell. I don't believe that she meets WP:GNG yet either, from the coverage about her in that role - much of it is speculation, or based on her online profiles, and most of the discussion is about the character and her role in the series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:08, 15 September 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.