Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darrow


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Darrow

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This has been created, turned back into a redirect, and recreated too many times now. Let's have an actual discussion.

Arguments for deletion (or rather, restoring the redirect to Surface Pressure) are straightforward: Jessica Darrow does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Her only roles in productions notable enough to have Wikipedia articles look to be Encanto and Feast of the Seven Fishes (questionable whether that film is particularly notable or whether her role was significant). And I couldn't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG: there are mainly trivial mentions in articles about Encanto and gossip articles. The article as is cites only two useful sources, and it looks to me like there aren't many more out there.

(See also Talk:Encanto, where I made this argument before and seem to have been ignored.) Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes however only one notable role is enough to have an article. there are many articles on actors with only one role. two is good enough for article. keep the article and allow others to work on it to add sources. she's one of the biggest starts in the most popular disney movie of last year. other sources can be found. allow others to add to article. There are better sources out there. They just need to be found. I know there are definitely sources to be used. And many of them that are linked are legit entertainment sites. Lets see what others think. Also Out magazine source no 3 is legit source. It is very popular Lesbian magazine. Raja1011 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are better sources out there, please find them yourself and share. See WP:But there must be sources! (And also, yes, I literally mentioned the Out magazine source in my nomination and said that it isn't enough on its own.) Aerin17 (t • c) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cuba, Florida,  and New York.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Billboard interview, few others that show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - restore redirect to song. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG, and while they do technically meet MUSICBIO (as was pointed out to me on my talk page), that still does not preclude them meeting GNG. And unfortunately interviews, being primary sources, do not count towards GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Billboard interview, numerous other websites that have covered and interviewed her, she has worked on acting roles as one of the main characters in Encanto (possibly the biggest Disney film of all time), GTA V, and Feast of the Seven Fishes, and has two charting songs on Billboard, one of which reached the top 10 in at least two countries. That alone should warrant an article, in my opinion, as it is not easy to do such a thing. The movie still has at least another few months of hype and circulation until it starts to wind down, so there ought to be more articles on Darrow regardless. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Beyond the Billboard interview, the Out article is significant coverage of the individual in an editorially managed secondary source. Those two are enough for GNG.  A simple google search also shows me a Broadwayworld.com article specifically about her (for a theater role) and some minor Buzzfeed stuff that's not sufficient for GNG but adds evidence to existing notability.  Ehh, and beyond that "Actor in a big role" is generally a pass, so the Nom's concern seems a bit more than necessary (although I respect attempts to prune bad articles). -Markeer 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, appears to demonstrate notability. If references are a concern a Sources exist tag can be added to the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as 2 through 5 are all in depth enough to meet aforementioned guidelines. Goes past WP:1EVENT, as she has both starred in Encanto and had chart success internationally—that's the foundations of notability, right there. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved though (indeed, as all articles could be); it's still a bare-bones stub in need of further expansion. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Echoing the statements above. The article more than meets the criteria for notablilty and with more edits over time will become more fluid. I also found some great legit sources that can be added including a billboard article: https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/jessica-darrow-surface-pressure-encanto-soundtrack-interview-1235025246 Raja1011 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing to add, the arguments above spell it out pretty well  Nevermore27  (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also so many other sources that can be added to make article better including a new buzzfeed article:https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenniferabidor/jessica-darrow-encanto-behind-the-scenes So there are plenty of legit sources to validate this article. Raja1011 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (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.