This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 19 December 2024 by reviewer Anuwrites (talk · contribs). 2010s Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

People adding text to this WP:BLP on a WP:MINOR should be arsed to add inline citations. Good ones, actually supporting the content. The current version [1] is ick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed at the time of writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be support during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination) discussion for deleting this version of the page and moving Draft:Raegan Revord here in its place, as that seems a fuller version and this doesn't seem to have substantial material that would need to be merged. Anyone object? (Or concur? Or other comment?) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Marbe166 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Seems that the time is now, afd was closed as keep. This article should be swapped with the draft (started in 2018!), and the edit histories of draft/draft talk should be preserved, note current sucky-ness of this BLP as written compared to Draft:Raegan Revord. Can you do it, do we need an admin, or even an rfc? Ping to @AngusWOOF and @PrimeHunter if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Raegan Revord back to its original title Draft:Raegan Revord (Actress), moved the better and older version Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord, and redirected Draft:Raegan Revord (Actress) to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So Draft talk:Raegan Revord will stay where it is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kept it there because this talk page already exists with significant content and Draft talk:Raegan Revord is mostly about whether it should be an article which is now moot. Others are free to merge if they think it would benefit this article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I consider [2] to be more relevant, and you fixed that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice up top to give editors a chance of finding older discussions, though I guess discussions posted 2018-2020 are irretrievably lost. I agree there's not much point to bringing those discussions over here, as long as nobody (again) deletes the talk page history of the draft. As long as Draft:Raegan Revord redirects into mainspace, the talk page history should be safe from deletion, right? CapnZapp (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the draft talk into an archive linked to this page, perhaps? It seems considerable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all decide to bring draft talk over, just post it normally. I added automatic archiving, which will sort it in less than 24 hours. CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean "just post it normally". Merging it with this page would be a lot of work, and we don't want to delete this talk page either. If we moved it over as the first archive page, that should work, I reckon. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you could just move the talk discussions to (the top of) this page, and one day later, the bot will have archived them for ya. What I am saying is: there's no need to manually construct an archive. CapnZapp (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you just copy and paste them up top, you lose the editing history, unless you also perform a merge, which is beyond my ability. It's far easier to just move the file in place as "archive 1". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_3#3_January_2025, so all may not be settled yet. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a relist, afd is open again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:BLAR all the drafts when you're done, so that folks don't work on the drafts by accident. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At last the cast section of the Young Sheldon article doesn't have one of its main female cast members as the only red link (or worse, no link at all)! It was a struggle over several years, before Wikipedia saw common sense here, but we got there in the end! I guess 2025 won't be all bad after all... CapnZapp (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case Raegan Revord or someone who knows her sees this, please consider contributing a picture of her per Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather odd to have separate sections for "early life" and "personal life" for someone who was 13 years old when the most recent item in either happened. And it's not some clean dividing line between the two; the "junior ambassador" item in "early life" isn't dated, but likely started after her "career" began. I can see having some distinction for people who have more substantial non-career items and particularly for those whose career started after their education, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to have this all in "Personal life", at least at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The car accident must have been at c. 15, right? Still early. At this point, I thought the single "Life" section was ok, because young, but I think many editors (don't know about readers) will expect to see two sections, and edit in that direction. So I think one section (Life or Early life both works) is slightly better, but I'm not sure it's worth the bother to "fight" against two. Looked for guidance at MOS:BLP but didn't see any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We actually don't know when the accident took place, despite our claiming "early 2023"; we know from the source that it was at least "weeks" before the April 2023 article, but other than that, it's fuzzy. But in any case, she was no older than 15, and that would typically be in the "early life" section of most bio articles. The main problem I have with calling a section simply "life" is that one's career is part of one's life; the common sections of "early life" for pre-career or pre-notability and "personal life" for non-career material during/post career usually makes sense, it's just an ill fit on a 16 year old whose career started more than half her lifetime ago. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, having separate sections for "early life" and "personal life" is very useful for any bio. Bios without them often end up jumbling together different things. It's just easier to read a bio that goes "early life" > "career" > "personal life", and preexisting sections help editors add things in the logical category. Please consider merging them only if y'all decide they are definitely too sparse on their own - to the degree it's actively worsening the article. CapnZapp (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very useful when all her life can be considered "early", or similar bios. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not very useful for any bio; it's useful for some, and this one is a prime counter-example. At this point we have just four sentences between the two sectiona.

1. Her birth and relocation
2. Her volunteer work
3. She is an only child
4. Car accident.

Item 2 is both of dubious value (its source is a promotional page) and can likely be slotted with career, as that seems like a promotional position, or at least one exploiting her visibility. (Having said that, we don't know when it took place,) #3 is a current statement, and as she still likely lives with her parents, it is as much a part of her current personal life as it was in her "early life", whenever that ended. #4 is something that may be best covered in career, as the source is about how it did or did not effect her performing efforts. She has not yet accumulated the stuff that normally fills out separate "personal life" sections -- marriage, kids, death. The sectioning of items here is arbitrary, capricious, and unnecessary. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know anything about this award we say she has? Is it WP:PROPORTIONal to include? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Family. Film Awards" were awarded by the World Film Institute. I find a Facebook page for the awards which lists wfiawards.com, which is not only dead, it appears not be archived at the Internet Archive. The webpage for the WFI as a whole, as listed at their facebook page, is also dead. I do find some newspaper coverage of it, but the vast majority of it was from 1996, when the award show aired on CBS. If blips again in 2022, when the awards show aired off-network, possibly purchased airtime... here is it airing simultaneously on four stations in the Pottsville, PA market (where reruns of The Big Bang Theory are up against reruns of Young Sheldon, apparently.) Oh, wait, this article claims it was airing on the CW, which doesn't accord with that listing. (Plus, Dean Cain hosting for the second year in a row?) Doing a newspapers.com search for "Family Film Award" Revord gets zero results, which suggest that the year's award didn't get coverage. (Searching for just "Family Film Award" in 2023 gets only listings in April in Hawaii and May in Ohio, which suggests this was the awards that had aired the previous December elsewhere, rather than new 2023 awards show.) So, it appears to be what was probably the final year of a dying award that got no coverage that we are sourcing from a database. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Superman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline explained the origins in their blurb on the 2023 awards: Originally produced by Dick Clark and initially broadcast on CBS in 1996, the awards recognize the significance of family entertainment.

It's certainly not a dying awards. You're forgetting that Google, Bing & Co are quickly turning into trash. It is no longer enough to "just google it" and conclude you didn't find anything. Here's recent coverage: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Here's the CBS page: [8] Here's a blurb about the 25th awards: [9] Here's some recent history: [10] Note: This is about the award, not Revord. Do note the awards are clearly notable and ought to have its own Wikipedia article, even though pre 2023 coverage is scant online now that search providers have turned into trash. I imagine that if we still had quality search engines, such as Google just one year ago, we would find newspaper coverage all the way back to 1995 without using library databases or newspaper archives.

By the way, Revord won the 2022 award [11] not the 2023 award. This appears to have been held December 26 as the 25th Annual Family Film Awards, hosted by Dean Cain and Laura McKenzie: A panel of industry leaders, celebrities, and the readers of Popstar Magazine have voted for their top choices in 20 television series and movies in different categories.

Ultimately I think we can keep the mention. Here's a couple of articles whose editors have included Family Film Awards: Neve Campbell and Jane Seymour won 1996. Michelle Yeoh was given the lifetime achievement award in '23.

CapnZapp (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we'd want to be avoiding newspapers archives, particularly if one is going back to '95 when fewer papers were online. Actually using a sizable newspaper archive, the only "Family Film Award" coverage I find in 1995 is this paragraph that showed up in a Sunday magazine section that is shared by a lot of newspapers, plus a two-sentence mention in the Bellingham Herald, also in advance of the event, but these are an award set linked to the PBS show Sneak Previews.... oh, and a few ads for the movie Arabian Knight touting it as the 1995 Academy of Family Films Award for Excellence winner, but that's a different award series dating back to 1981. Zero coverage of the winners of the PBS show. (Zero results for "Family Film and TV Awards")

Most of the sources you're listing are weak -- non-third-party source (CBS), a press release (EIN newswire), a WP:FORBESCON source, a submit-your-event-to-get-covered source (Black Tie), and the group's new website. That leaves three (If we count the Deadline source listed repeatedly as one) -- the Deadline and Billboard on nominations (which are likely just WP:CHURNALISM), and the Hollywood Reporter on winners. At least from the evidence presented here, the notability of this award voted on by the readers of Popstar! can indeed be questioned (as can the notability of that magazine itself, at least as its article currently presents it.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing on the notability (if weak) of the awards, and, I guess, the implicit acknowledgement my findings supplemented/replaced your own. I have stated no opinion on the Popstar magazine and would suggest taking discussion of it elsewhere. I am not suggesting we avoid newspaper archives, quite the opposite - thank you for digging there: now that google & co appears to be going down the drain Wikipedia needs to have a general discussion: previously you could get a fairly accurate view by "lazily googling it" (even though policy suggested many more avenues of research), but now more sleuthing should probably always take place before someone concludes something isn't notable. In this case, I suspect the awards might have undergone slight naming changes that reduce the effectiveness of phrase searches. Anyway, my main thrust is I see no compelling reason to remove the mention of the Family Film Award received by Revord which I assume is Gråbergs Gråa Sång's main query here. Since neither of us found any strong reason why it should be removed, keeping it can't hurt. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the phrase "the notability [...] can be questioned" if you assume I'm agreeing on notability. And the notability of the award is a key matter to whether this is included, as lacking any reliable third-party source noting Revord's victory, the question of the award itself being notable is key to its inclusion. But yes, your findings supplemented my own. (And yes, there appears to have been a name change, from "Family Film Awards" (how it was listed in 1996) to "Family Film and TV Awards" (2024) (but not to be confused with "Family Film and Television Awards", the separate 1980s item.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]