Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Davis (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 delete‎ but keep Draft:Jenna Davis for now. Editors can request history merging if need be. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Davis

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Previously deleted. Still not finding extensive coverage in RS. The Austin Chronicle is ok, People is a brief few sentences under a photo. Rest of the sources are interivews. Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find a teen vogue article on her and she has extensive coverage in albeit relatively local news stations. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the other AfD was result in draft, which is where the actual sourced article is. (Draft:Jenna Davis) Probably should check for drafts before creating an article, especially one that is unsourced. Still I don't see extensive coverage for her, which is why the article went to draft in the first place. In four months, nothing has changed. If you !vote keep, it would be nice if you provide the actual sources for this "extensive coverage". Thank you. Mike Allen 13:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge any new content in this article to the current draft article and delete this one. This article should never have been created based on the last AfD and the existence of the work-in-progress draft article that can be improved. WP:G4 also applies as reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldo Perez (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice – subject clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR. She seems to have one notable role that has garnered coverage, but WP:NACTOR requires "multiple significant roles" (which would be 3 or more). Subject is well short of that. In addition, as MikeAllen points out, it is Draft:Jenna Davis that has precedence, so if the subject is deemed notable, it is that version that should be in mainspace. This article was created by a WP:DE editor who was subsequently blocked partly for "out of process" article creations like this one – this version needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep the draft for now I don't think much has changed since the first AfD. She's still very young and could become notable in the near future so keeping the draft makes sense. Pichpich (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notable, but Draft:Jenna Davis is superior. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The prior AFD concluded on 4 January 2023. All the cites in the current article (including two i just added) are from after then, and are in legitimate news outlets. The coverage is not the same anymore. M3GAN has done box office of over US$ 175 million, that's quite big. In my view, we have a bit of a bias on Wikipedia (not entirely unfounded) against young social media "stars", because we've all seen articles on non-notable hopefuls. This is why lonelygirl15 was originally deleted in on 4 August 2006 and kept on 31 August 2006. Yes, I like my analogies to be almost 17 years old. Sure, copy whatever we want in whatever fashion from the Draft article, but the topic is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does that get her to "multiple significant roles" as per WP:NACTOR? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in the extra information from the draft.

The proposed AfD centered notability, but as @Nagol0929 and @Milowent have pointed out, there are additional sources that back WP:SIGCOV, including some in the Draft page, they are just not in the article yet but could be added and curated using curation tags.

She was also just nominated for the best Movie Villain for M3GAN in the MTV Movie Award for Best Villain, which happen in 3 weeks.

If this page was now deleted, then it would just necessitate another duplicated discussion in the AfC following shortly, that is not necessary.

Also counterpoint to @IJBall's argument above that it requires "3 or more", the WP:NACTOR guideline doesn't say 3, it says multiple ("more than one"), but also it doesn't limit it to one category, so between her roles in various shows including first listing for Treehouse Detectives as well as her role for M3GAN, both of which have articles on Wikipedia and have themselves been accepted as noteworthy. She has thus acted/voiced multiple significant roles in noteworthy movies/shows. Raladic (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. That is not how it is supposed to work – the draft has precedence. If the subject is deemed notable, the draft should be moved into mainspace, and this version deleted (or moved to draft in its place). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the AfD process so please don't WP:BITE me, but I can't seem to find anything in the AfD guidelines that mentions a that you must delete and then raise the Draft again. The article was nominated on the grounds of notability, which can be addressed through copy edit.

As I mentioned in my comment above, I would recommend merging the Draft in (which I understand, an Admin could also merge in the history if that's what your concern is), but I also understand no one owns content, so for the sake of simplicity, it might be easier to just copy edit the merged content since both articles now have a WP:PHIST since the article in question itself has been improved during the AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are new, you don't understand – whoever created the article first should get the credit for it (in this case, whoever created the draft and is adhering to the WP:AfC process), not the now-blocked editor who disruptively ignored an existing draft and "cut in line". If there is any content from the new version that is worth keeping (which I'm doubting), that gets merged into the Draft version, and the Draft gets moved into mainspace. Not the other way around. Do not reward editors who circumvent normal process and try to WP:Game the system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting a WP:HISTMERGE, that is sometime done in cases like these. But I don't think it's worth doing in this case. It would be up to the admin, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cutting the line" happens frequently among celeb/meme type articles -- draftifying something that the unwashed masses of the internet think is worthy of an article rarely succeeds. E.g., I am credited with creating articles like Annoying Orange even though i simply wrote a decent article after 10 awful ones got deleted. (This analogy is only 13 years old, thank you.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a decade+ ago (before I think Draftspace even existed – or that was very early on in its development). Nowadays the proper process should be respected.

Not respecting that process is a good way to drive good faith-editors right out of editing – What is the point of properly following procedure and trying to create a solid, well-sourced article through AfC, if some numbnuts troll is just going to create a trash article, and it's allowed to stand?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mike and Geraldo. Aintabli (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike and Geraldo, But however, this article, fails WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (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.