Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Talerico (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Mia Talerico}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Mia Talerico}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Mia Talerico}})

Second AFD, One claim to fame is she was on Good Luck Charlie, I almost redirected it on sight to Good Luck Charlie. Until I saw the failed AFD ended as no consensus. Thus I bring it up for consensus. Fails (IMHO) WP:ENT as she fails all three Criteria. Should the article be deleted and Redrected to Good Luck Charlie? Oh by the way She is Two! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Good Luck Charlie, the show which is the only role of this two-year-old actress. There is not enough to say about her outside the context of this show to warrant an article yet. If she continues acting as she gets older, the redirect can be changed back to a proper article when the time comes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping this at the prior AfD. What conceivable criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER can a two-year-old pass? Or shift this to the GNG; even presuming there's a source out there discussing the subject in "significant detail," what significant detail could there BE about someone who's working on mastering speech for the first time? The three Keep votes from the prior AfD ran respectively through "She meets the GNG" (which she doesn't), "The entire show revolves around her character" (which it doesn't), "There are sources" (which is irrelevant if they don't discuss the subject in significant detail) and "One episode has aired" (which forms no part of valid inclusion criteria). This is one of those cases where the closing admin should have gone for policy over counting votes (well, shouldn't they all be?) and I hope folks have better sense this time out.  Ravenswing  17:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

::That was my thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to the show as it is a plausible redirect. There is no signficant coverage about her, and not surprisingly, as a 2-year old, her acting career does not consist of a large body of critically recognised work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• As the one who previously nominated this article for deletion, I agree with the above comments that a redirect to the show's article is probably the best outcome. As far as I'm aware that's what we generally do with reality show cast members and the like who do not warrant a standalone article but whom somebody might reasonably search for.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Good Luck Charlie. how can a 2 year old merit its own article in this circumstance? LibStar (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (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.