Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Juarez

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 delete. When challenged, neither keep !vote could provide sources to back up their claims. So Why 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Juarez[edit]

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

See WP:TOOSOON about who may be up-and-coming. The references listed are the only information found by Google about an actress with this name, and two of the roles are future roles. There is no in-depth coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by SPA whose 2nd edit was creating this article, so there's very likely some sort of COI. IMDB and 23andme are not RS. This is way TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite sure why this one is even up for debate. Actress clearly passes Nactor and GNG. Cindlevet (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if there were RS that demonstrate such, but I could not find/see any. Could you please add the ones that you have to the article? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, without prejudice to relisting in the future if her career does not progress further. The roles she's played so far seem legitimate enough to assume more will be coming her way in the near future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)

— FSOJM791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So, essentially we should keep this based on her future potential. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of the "keeps" addresses the main problem, which is that we have an unsourced BLP. (A dead 23andme link and an IMDB page are not RS.) I've looked again and cannot find anything in terms of acceptable sources. The article is almost all OR and even its claim for notability is couched in CRYSTAL, e.g. "Jessica will appear in the film ICEBOX..." and "she will also be appearing in the New Netflix...". Flippant claims that this person clearly passes ACTOR and GNG are unconvincing. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The weak keep above is actual an argument for deletion. We keep or delete based on criteria that almost always mean once notable, always notable. So if her career does not yet make her notable, we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If someone might be notable in the near future, but isn't now, we can do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:40, 26 September 2017 (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.