Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Substantively, the community seems divided here. It is quite unlikely that more discussion would move this anywhere nearer to a consensus, but there is clearly no consensus to delete. The weight of policy-based argument seems fairly divided between users who feel that NACTOR/GNG is not quite met, and users who feel that it is. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

[edit]
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)

So this is where it stands. We've had an article created in open contempt of proper processes (at Raegan Revord (Actress)), moved over this salting per Talk:Raegan Revord/Archive 3#Requested move 19 December 2024 conditional on what is now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination). But then that AfD got sidetracked by other events and ended without a result. Now that things have settled down a bit hopefully we can have a proper evaluation of what happened. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a Deletion review of the 2nd nomination. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that this article has been in draft for years without reason, but has been repeatedly declined by over-zealous article reviewers. Nominating this again is a blatant abuse of the process and a waste of everyone's time. This is disruptive behaviour. Marbe166 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The blatant abuse of process was the other away around, when this article was created with an incorrectly capitalized title evading a salting. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To all above commenters: I'm going to suggest that while there were problematic things done along the way with regard to this article, debate over all who and which they were does not serve the purpose of an AfD discussion, which is generally to cover whether the subject of the article (and, to a lesser degree, the current state of the article) meet whatever standards we hold for a Wikipedia article. The previous discussion was awkwardly brought to a non-resolution closure. Returning to discussion of such things as notability will like serve the project better. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was a draft for WP-good reasons. "over-zealous" is your take, and nominating again is quite reasonable per the deletion review you just linked. That said, now let's just have an afd that won't confuse the next closer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 2 clearly significant roles in Young Sheldon and Georgie & Mandie, obviously notable productions, have her meet WP: NACTOR -Mushy Yank. 19:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that the single episode appearance in G&M was the same role as from YS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's the same character, but, If I may be pedantic, technically, it's not the same role (as these are 2 different productions). And that guest role (2 episodes?) received significant coverage. But if you or other users think it"s better to redirect to YS#cast, not opposed, though (opposed to outright deletion). I haven't seen Wish Upon and cannot say if her role is signifiant. If you know, let us know. Thanks. PS-She might meet GNG too btw. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear to me what policy or guideline the nominator invokes to delete this article. -Mushy Yank. 20:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same ones that were invoked in the previous nominations, which have been improperly denied consideration. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discusssions have been closed. Opening another discussion because you don't like the outcome, without any new arguments, is disruptive. There have been multiple arguments in the previous discussions showing the notability of the subject of the article. Marbe166 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you very much. The previous nomination (I see that you were the nominator too) mentioned "doubtful notability". Let's check the first too, as you are kindly inviting us to do so. "Actress who fails WP:GNG according to sourcing on page and to my Google search for articles from reliable sources with significant coverage. She also fails WP:NACTOR due to a single lead role. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON." (another nom)? Is that still your concern, then? (I will note that NACTOR is not about lead roles only, but significant roles) You don't think that the tons of interviews of her and coverage about the character/2 roles is significant enough (Variety, Screen Rant, international media)? -Mushy Yank. 20:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't help much with WP:N, not being independent of subject. And if they're not in a WP:RS, even less so. Consider linking the best 3 WP:GNG sources for this article you've seen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the 2nd AfD had been given a proper closure, it certainly would have. My comment here refers to the comments made by myself and other keep votes at that Afd discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to only a single notable role. Despite argumentation here, playing the same character again in another production is generally described as reprising a role, not playing a second one. No coverage indicating that Wish Upon was a significant role has been offered. Arguments that people have to just stop looking at deletion because of all that has come before seem to ignore what has actually come before; the first AfD was closed as Delete, the second one was ultimately closed without a keep or delete ruling, and every time the draft was submitted, it was turned down. I do support draftifying as it is certainly not unlikely that the subject will have another role or source of notability soon, but it's been waited for for years now. And I would have no objection to a redirect to Young Sheldon and a somewhat heftier bit of coverage for the subject there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a clear-cut case and even if there develops consensus for this, I would argue Revord is a good candidate for making an exception to the rule. She's so well known and notable not having an article on her would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. CapnZapp (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I think that trying to make a particular exception to include this subject is inappropriate, because the performer is notable for activities as a minor (and is still a minor.) Having a Wikipedia page about yourself is not a reward, it comes with burdens, and we should be particularly careful about those who did not have the adult decisionmaking ability to make the choices that made them notable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate you trying to twist my argument into wanting to include minors, User:NatGertler. I ask that you read what I write and consider my arguments purely on intended merits - Revord is far too high-profile not to have a Wikipedia article and a great case for an exception to the rules (note that at this stage this is a hypothetical, if this discussion ends in keep or no consensus to delete no exception needs to be made). Now if you absolutely must make this about MINOR, then at least be upfront with YOU having that hang-up, and a great start would be to not discuss it in subthreads with me present. CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good that the thing you don't appreciate didn't happen, and that I simply stated something that I think based on (in part) that the individual is a minor. I may feel that that's something you should have taken into consideration, but that certainly wasn't something I said in the post you're responding to. But then you have a habit of inventing stances for me to serve your goal and to ignore what I've actually said. If you want to put being protective of minors as a "hang-up", well, that's on you and your values; as a father, I find it comes with the job. But here you are, again trying to silence me for not agreeing with you. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not assume that just because she is a minor she didn't have "decisionmaking ability", there are to my knowledge no indication that she was pushed by her parents (who have the responsibility for her) into acting against her will. Marbe166 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I specifically included "adult" in that phrase; that a person tends to gain mental maturity and the ability to make appropriate and informed decisions during the period when they are going to physical maturity is not just a social concept, but also a legal one. We limit minors' abilities to enter into contracts, agree to sex, etc,, on that basis. In the case of Revord's acting, that began at age 4, and the contract to play Missy was signed at age 9 (and presumably would've covered the entire run of the show, as such contracts in California are limited to 7 years -- although there may be some shorter limit for minors, I don't know.) As to whether we can assume that a young actor's parents are working in their best interest... well, there's plenty of counterexamples in Hollywood history. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the IAR-ish argument carries the day, so be it. I don't clearly see anything from the WP-POV to lean that way myself, but I've never seen Young Sheldon, and number of !votes tends to matter. The recent pronoun spat (see article talkpage) made me think (again) that WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay) is something to keep in mind. The perhaps-not-quite-enough-good-sources thing is not unprecedented on WP, and the repeated discussions are a part of that, it's part of WP-life. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will alert each and every participant of the last discussion that you have opened an AfD on this article, User:Pppery. If only to make sure nobody accuses you of asking until you get the answer you want. The reason I'm suggesting this is because this is the third time an AfD has been opened or reopened for this article and that doesn't include a failed attempt to reopen one, all within the span of six weeks. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do so if you wish, but I don't see the need - this is clearly getting enough participation as it stands. My motivation here is not the get the answer I want - it's to get an answer - I was not the one who brought the January 1 keep close to the first DRV, and I would have accepted that close. But the January 18 procedural close is not an answer, so here I had to go.
If this is closed substantively as keep or no consensus then I will drop this, but the reason this has gone on for six weeks is because people kept meddling with proper process - by creating an article with an unnecessarily disambiguated title evading a salting, by doing a keep closure that was overturned at DRV, by doing the improper swap - none of that is my fault and it's kept us from coming to an answer at all and mandated this mess. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You had the opportunity to make that argument during the Deletion review, edit: and you did, so the matter was handled there. Marbe166 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review: "There is rough consensus to endorse the procedural closure ... all are free to renominate the article for deletion if they so desire."
Previous procedural closure: "The more I look into this entire discussion, the more I realized that I can not close this discussion. ... 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." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no improper swap, the second afd was closed keep when it happened. Not that it didn't add to the confusion, but it wasn't improper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'll note that you took it upon yourself to move my comment to the (then) end of this page, which now means this discussion is obscured in the middle of the not-votes. Okay, so I would like to say that you did yourself no favors by not clearly explaining that your impetus for opening up this AfD so close to the last ones is purely technical, that you feel the original 2024 discussion never got proper closure. I see you getting flack from a variety of annoyed editors, and believe this could have been partly avoided by clearly - at the top - explaining that you did not reopen an old wound because you want to give the community another shot at reaching a delete consensus. Perhaps you did not do yourself any favors by moving this discussion out of top visibility, User:Pppery...? Anyway, I sincerely hope you are about to get a satisfactory closure even though we're clearly heading towards no change in outcome; if anything the sentiment seems to inch away from no consensus and towards a keep. CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you WP:INDENT this comment as intended? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll copypaste (mostly) my comment from the last afd, afaict the source situation hasn't changed much:
I went through the refs, 21 at the time of writing (last afd). IMO, the ones that helps the case for WP:GNG are:
  • looper.com [1], the best one per content, but IMO it fails per [2]. If video-game editors don't think it's good enough for video-games, it's not good enough for BLP.
  • People:[3][4]. These 2 together may add up to a GNG-point, but there's a lot of "she says" in there.
  • HuffPo/Usa Today on her accident [5][6]. Good sources, perhaps another partial GNG-point.
So, having looked through these, I'm at weak delete/draftify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally while I'm weak keep myself I would say Snowball no consensus to delete would be the right call - this AfD has been opened purely on administrative grounds, at least that's what the nominator tells us, and snowball no consensus would close up the procedural wound as it were, without asking everybody to regurgitate what they said just a few weeks ago. That is, I fully agree with Gråbergs assessment afaict the source situation hasn't changed much - there's no good reason to think people will have changed positions in just a few weeks, and that's not what the stated goal here is anyway: If this is closed substantively as keep or no consensus then I will drop this. The point here, then, is to have an AfD run to its conclusion without being interrupted, prematurely closed, or closed for the wrong reasons. My suggestion is based on what I consider a reasonable and neutral read of the last AfD's comments that would satisfy these criteria. CapnZapp (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 19 I don't think we should WP:SNOWBALL (that essay is an essay) anything here, we'll go the distance (hopefully 1 week will be enough) and hope for the best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope nobody relists this, at least not before reviewing the last AfD - there's a lot of comments from editors that aren't participating this time; comments that I believe remain relevant (since they were posted mere weeks ago). I am not sure I like "hoping for the best", that sounds like the matter is out of our hands, when it's clearly not. Let us instead hope this sort of administrative procedure won't happen again for a very long time, at least for this article. CapnZapp (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that closers don't generally look (much) at previous afd:s, so people should make the best of their !vote in the present one. On the plus side, 10+ editors have commented so far, that's a respectable number. I was expecting some IP:s, but so far, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Unclear Magazine is a published Magazine, use to be on shelfs like FHM, however I think they only sell it online now. [10] That interview is just what that published in their magazine. However, interviews can be used to cite, flat facts. Because it's coming direct from the source who the subject is about its deemed verifiable. That then negates the need for a secondary source. Notability on objectivity is derived from other sources talking about subjects. And I really can't believe I have to state how to use simple citation verification over and over again at AfDs. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews can be used as WP:ABOUTSELF, sure (or interviewee's area of expertise, etc). They suck as pro-interviewee-WP:GNG arguments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content of an interview might not be independent, but the fact that an independent publisher chose to solicit and print the interview is a good indication that the subject is notable. pburka (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I second my 'Keep' votes on previous and any possible future AFDs. For a main character to one of the most famous show, a regular character to several other shows and a well known socialite for her appearance on several newspapers and news, what's more to prove that she passes WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and so many more enough to keep the article onboard? It was funny that on the 2nd AFD, we only had a single 'clear' delete vote that made the result to 'NO CONSENSUS', my 'strong keep' vote will always count on this topic. ANUwrites 08:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating what I said at the previous AfD, sans typos: "With respect to notability, this is borderline. There is only one credit that counts toward NACTOR, and there are 3-4 sources that almost-but-not-quite count toward GNG. That said, the history shows a number of readers expect to see this article and there is enough material to write a bio that is far from terrible. In these specific circumstances, I think we ought to IAR and recognize that a principal actor in a very popular TV show is probably worth an article. As such I am a weak keep." I will add that a) the procedural close on the previous AfD wasn't necessary - a no-consensus closure was the appropriate outcome, and b) I don't believe it is a productive use of community time to prevent the repeated recreation in good faith of an article that a decent proportion of the readers clearly expect to see. We are going to have to salt this and every other version of the title to prevent re-creation if this is deleted, which is worth doing to guard against attempts at promotion, but isn't a useful exercise when the community is this divided on notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raegan_Revord_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1277202582"