Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Grace Reaves (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Emily Grace Reaves
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declining prod since article has been at AFD before. Rationale was " Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR, minor or background roles in credits or roles in non-notable projects. Two sourced mentions are not related to acting and are passing mention of work in creating a kid's fashion line with her notable friend, so not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG either." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Orlady's arguments. Delete per nomination. The listed roles fall well short of WP:NACTOR. This is barely disguised marketing for the fashion business. Mcewan (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, nothing substantial has changed since the last time it was deleted. Mcewan (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks to me like she's notable, even if she's only 10 or 11 years old. Among her multiple TV and movie appearances, she had a role (I don't know how large) in a successful movie (Hannah Montana); reliable sources have reported on the clothing line that she promotes (and that has her name on it); and Google search results (~782,000 hits, mostly to YouTube and various fansites) suggest that she has a substantial fan base. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there are 4 credits at IMDb - an ER episode, the film you mention, a short and a video. For the last 3 she is not on the first page of credits which would indicate a minor part. That's not WP:NACTOR notability. As to the fashion line that she helped design at the age of eight, and the prurient interest from Fox News and the Daily Mail, that's a single event. And Youtube and fansites don't determine notability here. Mcewan (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have very little patience for pop culture, so I am not a good judge of the significance of things like the sequence of names on IMDB pages. Please excuse my ignorance on that point. Regardless of that ignorance, the Fox News and Daily Mail items constitute reliably sourced coverage of this girl; the judgment that their interest is prurient does not have bearing on her notability -- and her being in a popular movie and promoting a line of clothes are separate events, not a WP:BLP1E situation. WP:NACTOR speaks of "large fan base"; the existence of more than 700,000 ghits on her full name (all three names, in quotes) is suggestive of a large fan base; we don't have to cite all of those pages in order to be able to count them as an indication of something. Some of those hits probably are reliable publications -- I am not familiar with the fan zines that 8-year-old girls read, so I can't tell. --Orlady (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and on reflection I accept the argument that taken all together, notability is established. Vote changed. Mcewan (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. She has notoriety on the screen and with her fashion line. Several hits on Google along with multiple interviews on Youtube. She indeed passes WP:NACTOR. Tinton5 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.