Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (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 Procedural close‎. The more I look into this entire discussion, the more I realized that I can not close this discussion. Several weeks ago, in the midst of this AFD discussion, User:PrimeHunter moved the main space article to Draft space and the Draft space version to main space. So, the article that this AFD was started to discuss isn't even the same article any more. So, that negates both Keep, Delete and Merge votes and I'd like to "Super Trout" User:PrimeHunter for disrupting this AFD in such a blatant way. If editors want to delete the current version of this main space article, you'll have to open a brand new AFD and go through this process again. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Raegan Revord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award[1] and a nomination at Young Artist Award[2] thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANUwrites 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Wikipedia article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Wikipedia entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Wikipedia failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with your arguments (and love your passion). I definitely think the draft should be merged because what's currently there is kind of weak, but a cursory look at the draft looks like it has more information and sources. So, I say keep the article and merge it with the draft. (I'm still semi-new to wikipedia (especially since I don't use it all that often), so I can't say I know all the rules (of which there seem to be many, but I can understand why), but is there something keeping people from just merging the draft right now? I thought that during deletion discussions people could work to improve the article? And incorporating info & sources from the draft would almost certainly improve the article? (I kind of wanted to do that, but I assume there's a reason I can't if no one else is?) [Funnily enough, I found this article because I was trying to learn more about the rules of wikipedia, and it's linked in one of the many articles explaining some of the rules, so I came to check it out] MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marging is work, and doing the merge now might be wasted effort -- if we choose "delete", it will just get deleted. It's not necessary for evaluating this, since this article is not being evaluated based on its content but on its subject. It seems likely that if the decision is "keep", we will simply delete the article and move the draft version into its place, which is simpler than merging. (Merging is useful when you have two versions that each have worthwhile material that isn't in the other, but last I checked, that was not the case here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Wikipedia rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Wikipedia's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Wikipedia's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Wikipedia considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading but my argument "this rule hurts child actors more" does not mean I want to lower the standards for child actors. I don't have any general issue with the 2-roles criteria, iff we accept that thresholds and rules have justifiable exceptions. The current standards demonstrably result in articles on actors (especially young ones whose careers are just starting) remaining absent until well after they have completed a seven season run of a top 10 show, which is absurd. CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You give TV too much weight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay). Having a WP-article is not an achievement, nor does it necessarily do the subject any favors. The older someone is, it's a bit more likely they have WP:GNG-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GTrang (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all too complicated. I think we should simply not worry about it for a few days, until this AFD is over. Then we delete Raegan Revord and if the outcome is keep, move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. If the outcome is delete, we just leave the draft where it is, as the draft of something that has a reasonable chance of crossing the notability rubicon soon. There is nothing in the currently-live article that needs to be saved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have added a fourth possibility to my list. GTrang (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there was a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_3#3_January_2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to relist this. The comments above are clearly for the keep. This can be closed immediately. Marbe166 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your position amply clear, both here and at the article's talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume more good faith here, Nat. Vanamonde is one of several editors arguing for an exception to the rules (I'm another), please don't obsess over his exact terminology, or worse, try to invalidate his argument over insignificant technicalities. Also, I would drop the implied argument that the subjective ordering of a main cast matters. CapnZapp (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who didn't "assume good faith"? The only thing I said about the poster is that I don't know if they've seen the show, which, unless they had specifically stated that they had seen the show, is not a question of faith.
The idea that I should not address a basic factual error in their statement is strange. That that part of the statement is an "insignificant technicality" does not seem to be carried by the statement itself. I would not want folks who could become involved in this discussion but who did not follow the show to take that claim on face value.
"Also, I would drop the implied argument that the subjective ordering of a main cast matters." You try to police me for an argument that you infer, rather than the editor who made it explicitly part of their argument? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can agree on "a main [cast] actor"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. If the line is "the main actor", then I would say that no, Revord doesn't qualify. If the line is a "regular" (an actor who by default appears in every episode, as contrast to a "recurring" where the same actor plays the same role on more than one episode but it not by default in each -- in Young Sheldon terms, folks like Wallace Shawn, Ed Begley Jr.) or supporting cast, then I don't have any quibbles that she crosses that line, but would question whether that's enough for an exception. There are shows where you can have six leads -- consider the titular friends of Friends -- but YS isn't it, it has a supporting cast. (This would come into play if we were discussing Montana Jordan, the YS regular whose page I believe I noted some years back as similarly questionable, but whose continuation of his Georgie roll as a titular lead in Georgie & Mandy's First Marriage would make at least a good argument for the page's existence now.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nat. You don't get to question/invalidate Vanamonde93's opinion based on they failing to qualify "main actor". Revord is part of the main cast, and with even minimal good faith you would interpret "main actor" as "part of the main cast" rather than the borderline-preposterous argument you're making: Since Vanamonde thinks Revord the main actor, their opinion should count less. Just stop. It is unreasonable of you to request them to set up rules or exceptions. Just read what they wrote, or failing that, just listen to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. CapnZapp (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Capn, I do get to question the claim that she is "the main actor". I do, and I did. If you want to interpret what that editor meant as something other than what they actually said so that it accords better with what you want to see, you are certainly free to do so, I suppose. This attempt to demand that people you do not agree with do not participate in this discussion is not a good look. You may be a self-appointed "Capn", but you are neither the boss of Wikipedia nor the boss of me. Vanamonde93 is, of course, free to clarify their statement if they so choose, but trying to harangue me out of participation in this discussion is inappropriate. I did not request that that editor define an exception, I responded to the exception argument they put forth when they said we should IAR. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, would a "no consensus" at this point mean "article stays" or "back to draft?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to the closer of the discussion, not me. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A keep !vote means "should stay in article space, visible to all readers". We are having a deletion discussion, i.e. removing something from article space, and if we can't arrive at a consensus, we should not take the discussed action. No consensus should not be interpretable as "back to draft". Please don't pretend any of the not-votes for keep mean they are okay with "back to draft" (unless explicitly stated, of course). That's a huge qualifier to a keep not-vote that I would need to know beforehand, as in policy should say "when you're not-voting keep, we're going to assume you're okay with not actually keeping the article and instead consigning it back to draft hell where it has languished for 5+ years unless you actually qualify your comment with something like keep-and-only-keep". I could point out how the closer could equally easily (and equally disingenuously) interpret delete votes to mean "delete the article, delete the draft", meaning that those votes should also not count towards a "back to draft" outcome. But I'm not petty, so I won't. CapnZapp (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not voting Strong Keep. I just think this actor has been in enough regular and supporting roles for this article to be Kept. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball anything. Relisted twice, after having been reopened after already being discussed? This is starting to get ridiculous. What more do you need? (Looking at WP:RELIST, did this have too few participants? No. Is the discussion lacking policy arguments? No, almost everybody is obsessed with policy only with little thought to common sense. Are the participants nearing consensus? Not really - there is no consensus whether Revord meets NACTOR/GNG and there is no consensus whether she merits an exception to the rules if she doesn't) So why relist? CapnZapp (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is perfectly valid and should not be deleted as it pertains to a living person whom is an actress with a long career ahead of her, it contains accurate information and as such should remain available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiloman3 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 January 2025 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raegan_Revord_(2nd_nomination)