Deletion of Madelaine Petsch

Comment: meets  as the subject received ''significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'' http://www.teenvogue.com/story/riverdale-madelaine-petsch-beauty-routine-contouring-tricks, http://www.mtv.com/news/2980543/riverdale-cheryl-betty-episode-3/, http://www.ksitetv.com/riverdale/cheryl-blossom-riverdale-madelaine-petsch/138301/, https://www.google.cz/search?hl=cs&gl=cz&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=%22Madelaine+Petsch%22&oq=%22Madelaine+Petsch%22&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.851.3366.0.3893.3.3.0.0.0.0.954.1452.4-1j0j1.2.0...0.0...1ac.1j2.OUWINEZMVFw etc etc. I don't think this case constitutes  as this is not about an event but about an ''artistic performance''. I've also noticed that Madelaine Petsch receives monthly thousands pageviews which suggests it is a sought after topic with potential to development/improvements. Deletion would be in my opinion counterproductive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Fails  - 13 episodes of one series is not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." I don't find the other coverage to be significant or in-depth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR)

Comment: Has had significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON. This is pretty much the definition of an article that should have been created in Draftspace, and incubated for about a year, before even thinking of moving to mainspace. Also, as has been pointed out, is also a technical  fail as only one significant role to date. Like I said – too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR)

Comment: Rather than addressing each and every distraction raised above - this article fails . The sources listed in the article are not , they are  guff
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:RS||WP:TABLOID)