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.
Child actress that doesn't meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Did not have multiple significant roles. brewcrewer(yada, yada) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a large fan base, with multiple fan sites. She has appeared co-starring in The Happening, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a leading role in Universal Signs. I believe that meets the WP:ENTERTAINER standard. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A large fan base might satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER but that claim would require the verification from some sort of reliable source. But appearing in one film and having one semi-important role in another doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Future film roles are violative of WP:CRYSTAL. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only one film, but many films, and in many television shows. Also, future film that has been completed and already has an official site doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL (it can be verified). --staka (T ・C) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did she have significant/important roles in multiple films or has she just appeared in multiple films? All I'm seeing is the latter. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stated earlier that she has co-starred in The Happening as a significant role, and having an important role in Crash. She will have a one of the leading, and important roles in Universal Signs. Isn't that three films that she has a significant or important role in? --staka (T ・C) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my slight incivility, but you're exaggerating her roles. She did not "co-star" in The Happening (2008 film), she had role. Neither did she have a significant role in Crash (film), she had a role. As for Universal Signs, there's no Wikipedia article on the film and her role in the film or the film's notability has yet to be established. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought she did co-star in The Happening but I guess not. She was one of the four main character in the film getting me to believe that she co-starred. As for the film Crash, critics say she was "the heart and soul" which seems she had a significant role, and she did conclude the racism in the film. Her biography on TV.com (reliable, I don't know) states that Universal Signs was a 2007 film, and has no Wikipedia article so I believe that isn't a notable film, sorry about that. So she sort of has one or two notable films (and one in unnotable film), so it does not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER.. --staka (T ・C) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepAssuming the IMDB entries aren't falsified, She's got plenty of appearances for her age, indicating an ongoing career and large potential for expansion. I can't see WP:ENTERTAINER intending this to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made three assertions, only the last of which is remotely WP:CRYSTAL--either of the other two are sufficient on their own: 1) She doesn't fail WP:ENTERTAINER--As I read it, it doesn't require multiple, significant roles. If that's what it's supposed to mean, it should say it. It says "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." From what IMDB says, she's certainly been featured multiple times in notable film and television shows. Full stop. Granted 'The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.' So, if anything contradicts her IMDB credits, they should be considred unreliable. I'm not seeing any assertion so far that those credits are inflated or erroneous, however. 2) In the absence of an impeachment of the IMDB record, her career to date is larger than what's in the article, satisfying WP:POTENTIAL simply by documenting the IMDB-referenced appearances, see also WP:DEMOLISH, and 3) in a longer term, there is FURTHER potential for growth--WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, since she already has plenty documented appearances; this just further reinforces my opinion that notability, while not temporary, can only increase with respect to this young actress. That is, I give her more benefit of the doubt as a living and working entertainer who has a demonstrated potential for future contributions, than I do for a dead entertainer whose contributions cannot possibly expand in the future. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I've added to the article, try thesethreereviews which specifically comment on Sanchez' acting ability. I'd encourage those advocating deletion to review the article and the additional sources, which I or anyone can add to the article as desired. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple appearances on notable television shows. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "featured" role is one that could conceivably be nominated for a Supporting Actor award. None of these roles satisfy. — MusicMaker5376 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "featured role" does not appear in WP:ENTERTAINER. See my quotation above. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, a "featured" performance must be different than a "significant role" else the two clauses in WP:ENTERTAINER are simply saying the same thing. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Any editor who has been to the movies lately and seen M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening must realize that this article should exist, for she plays a key role throughout the movie. WP:ENTERTAINER has serious flaws if it somehow excludes her from having an article on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a really crappy movie that was, by the way...just a side note. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a subjective statement is completely irrelevant to this Afd. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See where I wrote, "just a side note"? --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a very good criteria that can be specified. But specifying it could be construed as uncivil towards the nominator. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know the nominator very well and I'm very sure he won't get insulted. In addition, if it truly fits under one of the criteria, incivility should not stand in the way of the correct application of Wikipedia's policies. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fly is just avoiding the fact that there is no such criterion. In fact, number one explicitly states, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." However, someone else already argued for deletion. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt does not matter if she passes WP:BIO or WP:SOMEOTHERSUBNOTABILITYGUIDELINE. Without significant independent sourcing, we cannot have the article, and I cannot see that such exists. Perhaps it will someday, we could always write the article then. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a general reference for her biography. There are many news articles and biography pages that we may reference to expand the article. --staka (T ・C) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added two official movie sites, one of which confirms IMDB on her other contributions, like Crash. Anyone desire more sourcing, or is this enough to meet WP:RS? Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on why the official movie sites (references, not external links) are neither sufficiently secondary or reliable. I genuinely do not understand why you don't believe the criteria to have been met. If film credits, primary sources, can be cited, why can the official movie sites not be cited? There's nothing particularly negative or controversial about asserting that she appeared in such-and-such a movie. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, to meet notability, the notability needs to be through independent third-party reliable sources. And given that she is being mentioned in moview reviews and in fact is being singled out for bad acting in this review, there certainly appears to be abundant independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but the assertion was that they weren't reliable, not that they didn't establish notability. I would expect a movie's official website to be a reliable source for the content of the movie (actors, etc.), but insufficient to estabish notability. The assertion that the official site wasn't reliable threw me a curve ball. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her acting career has named roles of sufficient signifigance that they appear in moview reviews such as this one from CNN. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being part of the main cast of Happenings (which indeed sucks, but is one of the big movies this year) is enough to make her notable. -- lucasbfrtalk 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Any article whose subject has had 482 Google News hits in the past month is not difficult to source. An actress who plays a major role in one of the biggest movies of the year is, in my opinion, inherently notable. faithless(speak) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (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.