Deletion of Aleisha Allen (2nd nomination)

Comment: Actresses have rather high notability but fails 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As I noted at the DRV I'm of the opinion that the article was  eligible as a minimal rewrite of a previously deleted article, but there were new sources added and I don't think they show notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G4)

Comment: while I agree that they pass , it's just barely. And when the SN is a barely pass (like a football player who plays in a single game), then GNG comes more into play.  And in this instance, they clearly don't pass , as ably demonstrated by Hut
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: sources aren't great, but probably at the GNG bar.  One source in particular is really good and detailed, but reliability is questionable (biography today). I think Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable?   Certainly meets the first prong of  so keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR)

Comment: Actress passes guideline one of , Having significant roles in Blue's Clues and Are We There Yet? (film)|Are We There Yet and It's Are We Done Yet?|sequel. And the article of the actress has multiple reliable references to support and verify her acting career. And she fits criteria two of  as a result of passing . ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." And there are multiple independent sources mention on the article for . You can't just pint out the significan t coverage clasue without pinting out the others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: as not coming close to meeting  nor does she meet  as a speech pathologist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: This whole article never should have been recreated. Not withstanding its clear and present G4 eligibility, the article makes no credible claim of significance for its actress and fails spectacularly to establish any notability whatsoever. Of the sources given the first only definitively proves show was born on the 28th of April, the second goes to a book which according to to google's preview tool looks very much so to be based on Wikipedia, which would disqualify it as a reliable source since editors can not cite Wikipedia. Married Biography, the third source, looks to be an entirely fan run cite since the overwhelming majority of the articles appear to have been created by Olivia Clarke, but there is absolutely no about us page to lend credence as to the site's reliability. The library of congress citation provides no information to support the claim that she was born in a specific location or that those are her parents. The rotten tomatoes link is sound, but on closer inspection appears to be very closely worded to this article - enough perhaps, to raise eyebrows (although I begrudgingly admit that there are only so many ways you can say something before it all starts to sound the same). The Entertainment weekly citation supports that she was in best man but does not include any mention of the show out of the box despite the apparent attempt to use this source to verify that fact, making its use misleading. The Jet source provides no information whatsoever, it just lists her as a cast member which is a far cry from proving a usefully source, and as it is the reference doesn't actually highlight the actress, it highlights her male co-star, suggestion a desperate attempt to artificially inflate the number of sources in this article at the expense of the quality of the sources. The New York Times article requires a subscription to read (according to my browser) which means any use it may have in supporting is severely offset by the fact that I can not read it, and if I can't I'm guessing others can not either. The PACE source is a student testimonial, which reads as being promotional, however the source only covers the PACE graduation and makes no mention of Columbia university, which again is misleading since sources at the end of the sentence should cover all applicable information unless noted otherwise. Source 12 and 13 are youtube and imbd, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Collectively, then, the article reduces itself to "she is a former child actor with two roles of note now working as a speech therapist in new york" which passes none of the criteria set forth at , , , and , which in my mind then begs the question...why do we need to have an afd when A7 and G4 should clearly and unmistakably apply here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ACTOR||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)