Deletion of Auli'i Cravalho

Comment: As per nom, as well as the lack of  or  of coverage. Also Note the completely non policy based nature of the 'keep' !vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: I guess  doesn't apply since the individual is a public figure, but my concern remains that she doesn't meet . I would be willing to support redirecting to Moana (2016 film) at this time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NACTOR)

Comment: The first line of the  page states that such an argument can be invalid or valid - so is it just your personal view that my argument is invalid? I do not mean to come across aggressive, I am trying to understand why you said that when it is not what the page states. Also, with regards to your point about the page views, if you reread my comments you will see I did also include the page views for Auli'i Cravalho's individual page - that was the ~21,000 views of the course of a week figure I mentioned. ~~~~  {{subst:Unsigned|1=EmWinn|2
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This is directed at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and any others who believe my points to be not based on policy. I made my comments in relation to what had already been said by Sro23. If you read , you will see that the policy states all three requirements must be met for there to be a violation. My comments relate to the second requirement outlined, namely that the person is likely to remain widely unknown after the event. As I have already stated, I believe this is unlikely to be the case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: EmWinn, your first point is basically , which isn't a valid reason for keeping an article. Peter Ostrum has a long article precisely because independent sources have been writing about him for 45 years after his only film role and he has maintained his notability over that period. Had Wikipedia existed in 1971 and someone created an article on Ostrum, there's every chance it would have been put up for deletion as WP:TOOSOON as well. You also state "there is a lot of interest in the actress" but you have only provided evidence of interest in the movie via number of page views, not in her. And you say "she is likely to become well known" – that's just speculation at this point, per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:CRYSTALBALL)