Draft talk:Raegan Revord

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article creation[edit]

Just want to ping User:Campycipro to the existence of this draft, apparently they didn't see the edit notice. Anyway, your article is likely speedily deleted soon, Campy, but feel free to contribute to this draft. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord could be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That link only illustrates how some Wikipedians can't see beyond strict rules. Revord clearly deserves a Wikipedia entry in my opinion. I want the takeaway from this talk discussion to be something else: "don't start a new article when there's already a well-crafted draft waiting". Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That takeaway too, sure. However, the afd was a year ago, better sources may have appeared. I think WP:RS are to some degree careful about covering kids, hence WP:GNG can take awhile, compare the history at Scarlett Estevez. I remember thinking at some point "I should be able to create an article about her" (I'm a Lucifer-fan), but nope, not enough sources at the time. There is also WP:MINORS and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing to consider. Not that I think you or Campycipro are Raegan Revord. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood actors are clearly not something we need to protect even if they're under 18. By that I mean they are clearly working to become public figures, and would not find it undesirable to be featured on Wikipedia. (Don't expect to be able to have a movie career anonymously, is all I'm saying) Anyway, no I'm not affiliated with Ms Revord, though I am the editor that started the current article when I found it highly odd that everybody on Young Sheldon had their own article except one of the female actresses. But for some unfathomable reason there are editors using arcane bureaucracy to claim she doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. If you feel you have added enough sources, I highly recommend you move the article into article space and help shoot down sticklers wanting it gone. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the afd, I'm not unlikely to side with the stickling arcane bureaucrats (quite possibly aligned with the Auditors of Reality). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's a regular on a hit television show, so I don't see why she can't have own article either. But I'm not currently an admin here. Another source (TV Guide) which says she was a guest on The Talk--I can add that later or someone else can https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/raegan-revord/credits/3000788882/ Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Variety short essay link[edit]

Corona Chronicles: ‘Tiger King,’ Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Creative Spark and a Singer Faces Backlash After Testing Positive, by Variety Editors (including Raegan Revord) CapnZapp (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon[edit]

She is just a child at this point so understandably, there is not yet a lot of information about her. If her parents manage her social media accounts, then you know they are quite protective of her (which is good news). I think this should be left as a draft for some more years. In the meantime, we can continue to update it as necessary. Nerd271 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. The sole reason this is a draft is because our own internal policies are not fulfilled (with the aim to reduce the number of arguments whether a given actor really deserves an article, I presume. In this case it is blindingly obvious the subject of the article merits her own Wikipedia article, and it is solely procedure that keeps that from happening). To phrase that in a different way: The second young Ms Revord is reported to be in a second notable gig, this article goes live. Actors are public figures. Perhaps crudely put: "if you don't want to be on Wikipedia, don't do anything notable". Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All seems a bit silly, she has had multiple recurring roles, so this seems to be about the use of the word 'signifigant' but that would preclude many other actors who only have a heap of roles which wouldn't be classed as 'signifigant' based on the rejection of her roles on Modern Family, as the young version of the main character in Wish Upon, daughter of a lead on With Bob and David to name three. She has also been a model, although NMODEL link on the NACTOR link above leads nowhere for some reason. They also seem to have different rules on the French language version where her page is up and has been for a while without objection:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raegan_Revord Bertcocaine (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMODEL leads to the same place as WP:NACTOR. Different languages of Wikipedia have different rules. CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting.. allow me to clarify. By "nowhere" I meant it leads to itself having gone nowhere inbetween. Regarding the topic, perhaps you or someone else can explain why this "different policy" is applied differently within the confines of this language of wikipedia? For example, this article seems fine despite having less credits, and only one that could be considered "signifigant" (the meaning of which you declined to discuss further?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiera_Allen Bertcocaine (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each language version of WP sets their own rules (PAG). And per WP:OTHERCONTENT, that these rules exist, doesn't mean they have been applied. It's quite possible that the fr-WP aticle fails their rules too, but it may not. Wikipedians only notice what they notice. An article is only as good as the editors who spent attention on it. In favor of The Kiera Allen article, it has a couple of WP:GNG-good sources like Variety and The New York Times. She is also older, which I think makes BLP-good WP:RS more willing to cover her in detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiera Allen had a 2020 discussion that resulted in keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord had a 2020 discussion that resulted in delete. It's possible Revord might have more roles but until those sources discuss in detail, it's not ready yet. Be patient, as with Olivia Rodrigo. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it leads to itself having gone nowhere inbetween I'm sorry but I don't understand what this means. If the other responses (just above) helped you, maybe that's okay... CapnZapp (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. I based my comments on the statement from CapnZapp regarding requiring a second "significant" role being required, which seems to be supported by most of the comments. As pointed out, both articles had an AfD, but since then it seems an individual has made the decision rather than much in the way of further debate? If she fails as not signifigant, Kiera Allen should have for the same reason. I think this makes Wikipedia look rather inconsistent in the application of it's policies. The answers given to me here suggest it's just down to reliable sources, even though the same sources have been used on many other articles, and no-one has objected to their use as being unreliable? To clarify, if I locate better sources with the same information, would this draft then be accepted for publishing? CapnZapp, what i meant was you click the link and it stays on the same page as it is self referential, apologises for the confusion. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the decline boilerplate text (on the article page) says, there's nothing wrong with the references here. The only reason there are editors that refuse to enter this article into article space (such as IVORK, Dan Arndt, AngusWOOF and most recently, Kaleeb18) is because articles on actors require the subjects to have coverage of more than one significant role, and its clear that only Young Sheldon qualifies as "significant". Unless you can somehow make those editors stop watching this page, the only way to publish the page in article space (and not have that be reverted) is to wait until Revord has her second significant role (and that coverage of that reaches reliable sources). Disclaimer: if it was up to me the article would have been published a long time ago. Revord is clearly a significant actress worthy of Wiki coverage, and it feels contrary to Wikipedias stated goal of increasing coverage of female subjects when our Young Sheldon article features exactly one red link, that of a female actor. CapnZapp (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

112 (One Hundred and Twelve Episodes)[edit]

How famous does someone need to be to be notable? Being instantly recognizable to tens of millions should be plenty enough. I tidied it up a bit added another reference, by the time this is approved she will be retired. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAME does not equal WP:NOTABILITY. DMacks (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda funny, but it seems like that's what will happen. WikiTG99 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC comment[edit]

Moved from Draft page

Once again, the decliner is very terse here. The article subject is certainly notable. The problem is instead specific to our WP:NACTOR guideline, notability for actors. This submission is declined because Revord so far does not have a second significant role - when NACTOR talks about multiple films, tv shows, etc, that means more than one. The draft easily meets every other criteria for publication. Just something I wished the decliner would clarify, instead of the misleading and incensive "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The topic is most definitely notable enough, its just that the article needs to wait until Revord scores her second significant role, satisfying NACTOR. CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more confusing I think. Not meeting the notability criteria is exactly synonymous with not notable enough. If she's not notable enough (even if she has some) at this time, that's the end of the story for now. If she becomes more notable in the future, she could cross the threshold. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the point that "that's the end of the story for now" is the message we ought to be sending. "Not sufficiently notable for inclusion", on the other hand, could mean a lot of things, and is much more likely to incense a reader, especially those not especially accustomed to how Wikipedia works. If we instead make it clear that the only thing holding back this article is that it needs to put Revord in a second significant role of a notable film or show, which can only happen in time; clarity is achieved and nobody wastes any time or effort chasing down ghosts. CapnZapp (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I don't deal with AFC much. This might be something we should raise there, for improved wording of the {{AfC submission/reject reasons}} message (feel free to ping me). DMacks (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks You might find this interesting. CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the discussion here reverts the Reject reason to its unhelpfully terse state[edit]

Hello User:Primefac (and User:AngusWOOF) - while I understand the rationale behind moving talk discussion to the talk page, your move defeats the reason I made my comment. That reason is: telling users the submission is rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is profoundly unhelpful, when in reality, it is only declined/rejected because the subject doesn't have multiple significant roles in notable works (WP:NACTOR). Removing the commentary is fine, but then please tweak the AFC Submission template with the extra detail it should have had from the start (I am referring to User: Curb Safe Charmer's post in particular). I looked at the template, but realized I am not sufficiently familiar with the process to do that myself. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When declining a draft, after selecting a generic reason from the dropdown box, the reviewer is presented with a text box labelled "Elaborate on your decline reason here using wikicode syntax". This is the place to leave a comment explaining the specific notability issue, which in this case could include a link to WP:NYA which might help the author understand that the decline is not simply the whim of the reviewer but grounded in a guideline. The reviewer should not be rejecting the draft, because that means it is wholly unsuitable to Wikipedia and would be uncontroversially deleted at AfD, which is not the case if the person is almost reaching the notability threshold. Reviewers sometimes reject when the draft has been repeatedly resubmitted with no real improvement, considering it tendentious editing. Rejecting an article that is 'otherwise ok' is sending the wrong message to the author. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... but the problem, @CSC, is that I count 1 rejects and 5 declines. None of them comes close to posting a message that is actually useful.
The page is not telling users what they deserve to hear, not now and not ever - none of the four reviewers involved have ever managed to do that.
Against this backdrop, I hope you see where my change proposal comes from. Also, how I might want to reinstate my comment to the visible top of the actual Draft page, since I don't know how to follow your guidelines retroactively. (I'm not a Draft reviewer, so I probably shouldn't even if I knew how) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the discussion appears to have stalled/ended. I choose to interpret that as consensus to explain to users exactly why this article remains a draft, why there is nothing to be done about this except wait, and to do this in a prominent position (since it is a comment to the latest denial, not all of them). Since I am not a draft reviewer, the means I have to my disposal is the {{AfC comment}}, so that's what I will keep using. Thanks all! CapnZapp (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's terse on the article page, and discussed thoroughly here. It's also discussed at the AFD page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside any suggestions anyone might have for either improving AFCH or the AfC procedures, if a reviewer has rejected the draft, the lack of ability to add narrative is I believe by design, and the expectation is that if the draft's author doesn't understand the previous decline reasons and comments, or feels aggrieved, or wants to know what they can do next, they can click the 'ask for advice' button which starts a topic at the AfC helpdesk which is 'staffed' by reviewers who are experienced in providing such advice. The draft's talk page is also an appropriate place for the reviewer(s) and author to engage with each other. Reviewers are not obliged to go out of their way to proactively provide such advice - there are too many drafts in the queue for us to do so. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no, User:Curb Safe Charmer. When people see a BIO draft declined with the message "she's not sufficiently notable" their first inclination is not to ask for advice but to go "but she's very notable!", and spend effort improving the article, and resubmitting. All in vain, when the real reason isn't that they're trying to add an obscure non-notable person or that the article quality in general is lacking, but instead a fact of life no article improvement can remedy just yet: that she has only one role. And after four or five draft submissions I realized we need to better explain that there's nothing to be done but wait.
As you have previously stated, declining for such a specific reason ("only one role"), should be mentioned in the decline.
In the present case the problem is of course that the draft got rejected, not declined. The fact you can't elaborate on a reject is okay and I understand the reasons why this is so. But none of this fixes the actual problem! I so wish one of you would actually change the reject into a decline, and add a short note along the lines you yourself outlined above: This is the place to leave a comment explaining the specific notability issue, which in this case could include a link to WP:NYA which might help the author understand that the decline is not simply the whim of the reviewer but grounded in a guideline. What can I do otherwise? Submit and resubmit the draft until I get lucky? Respectfully (but exasperatedly) yours CapnZapp (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting[edit]

Per the above, I see no other recourse than to resubmit, hoping the reviewer will a) decline and not reject b) take the time to specify a more detailed reason than merely "not notable enough", per the voluminous discussion above and linked pages. CapnZapp (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Thank you for your rapid response/AFC action. However you still did not write anything specific about WP:NACTOR, something along the lines of This submission is declined because Revord so far does not have a second significant role - when NACTOR talks about multiple films, tv shows, etc, that means more than one, or, if you prefer Curb Safe Charmer's suggestion: there is a text box where the reviewer can and should write a custom message to expand on the reason for the decline to supplement the generic reason. That is what should happen here. Most reviewers know this, and would naturally do so, in this case probably pointing the draft's author to WP:NOT YET (actors). CapnZapp (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not decline it under NACTOR because she fails GNG, which I explained in my decline comment. NACTOR didn't even factor into my decision, so there was no need to mention it. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, Primefac? We have had a discussion over weeks, and the sole discussion point the entire time has been for AFC reviewers to point out when NACTOR is the holdup. CapnZapp (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it is. If there existed significant independent coverage of Revord right now, she would meet GNG and I would happily pass it to the article space. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG "rules" them all. Except WP:NACADEMIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you never intended to help me out getting the specific info onto the page, and never agreed NACTOR was the thing holding back the page, why did you not say so, Primefac? You're making this discussion feel like weeks of completely wasted time (I started it Nov 16). I have repeatedly made my aims clear: to get the decline template to inform users the draft is declined because of NACTOR right in the template, so they don't waste effort improving the article and resubmitting, the way they have done on multiple occasions. You have participated in this discussion that has spanned three talk pages at least since 21 November 2022. It never occurred to you you might tell your fellow editors they are discussing what your actions turn into a non-issue?! You yourself have moved my AFC comments, that already in May argued my point. Not even hinting you disqualify my reasoning. At one point editors even made a Github ticket! All useless. CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is neither a guarantee nor a requirement, it is an indication that the subject is likely to be notable. GNG, on the other hand, is very specific about what is and is not notable. As I said above, Revord can be notable with only one role, if there is significant independent coverage. She can also not be notable with a second role, if there is not significant independent coverage about said role. The only SNG that really "changes" a review is WP:PROF because the community determined that different metrics are needed for academics. I have no issue with other reviewers using SNGs to indicate to a draft writer what may be helpful, but I prefer to stick to the hard policies. You say I never agreed NACTOR was the thing holding back the page, but I also never disagreed; it is very likely if she meets it she will also meet GNG (which, again, i the whole point of SNGs); I just did not use it in my decline. Primefac (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much how I think of it. For example, here's a keep afd on a politician who never won an election: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (3rd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue[edit]

To date, Revord has been in 127 episodes of a popular internationally-syndicated program. For there to be no appropriately sourced Wikipedia article about her is illogical. I do acknowledge that Young Sheldon is her only "significant" role but surely being in the main cast for six seasons of such a widely known show counts for something in way of general notability? An article for Revord is long overdue and to have drafts continuously declined is nonsensical, regardless of how many times WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR is invoked. 2001:8004:1160:2E08:803A:D6A0:AE4C:40D8 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting this approved will be a crapshoot. The last time the draft was declined, for example, the editor did so not because of NACTOR, but because he claimed Revord isn't notable at all! (Talk about wasting our time on that one...) CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you guys that Wikipedia does not have a deadline. It is better to focus on making this draft a high-quality one before making it a regular article. Nerd271 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've been adding some ok-ish sources recently, and I think there's a chance the next reviewer may come to a "Meh, why not." conclusion. Time will tell, the article is currently submitted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Nerd271, bringing up WP:DEADLINE is bullshit. The earliest attempts at providing a Revord article is from six years ago. This is clearly a case where one article is subjected to much higher standards than others. Revord remains the only main cast actor of Young Sheldon without an article. CapnZapp (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Civility will serve you well, CapnZapp. I don't see a problem with maintaining high standards. I'm not responsible for the other articles. I have edited this one. I support gradual development until it is ready for prime time. Assuming her birth date is accurate as given, she was just a child back then. So having an entire Wikipedia article about her while she is still alive does not seem appropriate. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you that we actually have higher standards for biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång has made constructive edits. This article now looks much better than it used to be, though that is still not a guarantee that it will be accepted. Nerd271 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think bringing up "Wikipedia does not have a deadline" is a good choice when you want other editors to sit on their hands for six years. It is more useful in cases where editors pull the trigger prematurely; when holding off hours or maybe days will improve our encyclopedia. In this case, the argument "denied cause <2 appearances" I can accept. The notion she doesn't deserve her article even once she fulfills NACTOR... not so much.
So having an entire Wikipedia article about her while she is still alive does not seem appropriate. Once more I'm bewildered what you mean, because surely you aren't saying you find it reasonable to hold off until her death before we consider an article? We have thousands of articles on still-living people. Some of them are even minors.
CapnZapp (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being the only cast member without an article is not a compelling argument; working with notable people does not inherently mean you're notable. (Of the folks in the title roles of Three Men and a Baby, only the actors who played the baby remain without an article, and that's fine.) Notability is not WP:INHERITED. And at the moment, Montana Jordan is tagged for notability. (But I will agree that the shouldn't-have-an-article-because-she's-alive argument is bizarre.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being antagonistic towards other editors will not do you any good. No, my point is that she is just a child. Understandably, her parents keep much of her personal life private, so there is not a lot of information available. Hence, the article is correspondingly short. Like I said, I am not responsible for the other articles. But we should maintain high standards when it comes to biographies of living persons. This one is a minor, i.e. vulnerable, meaning we should be extra careful. Furthermore, it is common knowledge at this point that girls and women are oftentimes exploited by the entertainment industry. (I have not seen any evidence in the case of Revord yet, fortunately.) I do not want to see Wikipedia contribute to that. Nerd271 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler CapnZapp Gråbergs Gråa Sång To reiterate to everyone here, the point is that we are working on a biography of a living person. Care should be taken. Sorry I wasn't clear. Nerd271 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said something similar in the first thread on this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying a lot that kind of presumes that I am unaware or insensitive to the fact Revord is not yet an adult, Nerd271. Please try to understand my frustration with the way this particular draft has been treated way harsher than loads of other newly created articles (including BIOs, including of minors) is not directed at you. But your attempts at defusing the issue (select "gems": May I remind you guys that Wikipedia does not have a deadline, while she is still alive and why on earth are you presuming I think "notability is [] INHERITED"?) sure aren't helping. You might think you're helping, but you're not. In fact, if I weren't able to assume good faith, which I am, I would probably start thinking you might be trolling us all. Anyway, I think I'm done here. For now. CapnZapp (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnZapp: Multiple people disagree with you, albeit to varying extents. This should prompt you to realize that patience is well-advised. Lashing out at other editors will not convince them you are right. If you choose to quote other people, make sure you quote them exactly. Your first quote of me was correct. This one is not. Nerd271 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are three quotes, the first two separated by a comma (each within a {{tq}}) and the third uses [] to indicate the quote is partial. All are very much correct. CapnZapp (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem of your third quote of Nerd271 is that it's not a quote of Nerd271. It's a quote of me, and whilst I may be a nerd, I am not that particular nerd. So no, it is not correct. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is there still a discussion about notability?[edit]

I can't think of a single reason why Raegan Revord does not have a wikipedia article. She is clearly known worldwide for being the main actress of a famous show that is shown worldwide and is running for YEARS. The only reason i can think of is that apparently someone does not want her to be in the english Wikipedia and some higher ups respect that wish. Youtubers with 100k subscribers have own wikipedia articles, but an actress that is known worldwide doesnt't have one? That doesn't make sense. Would someone like to explain? 109.250.221.72 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG and the rest of this talkpage. What's primarily wanted are some great WP:BLP-good independent sources about her. Being 16, WP:RS-media seems to be careful about writing in-depth stories about her life. Then again, "Review waiting". Perhaps the article has been significantly improved since the last review. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not really. minor tweaking of a source since october 2023 submit and decline AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope springs eternal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question the claim that she is the main actress; a regular, to be sure, but I suspect she gets less screen time and certainly less ongoing story involvement than Annie Potts and Zoe Perry. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's easily enough written about her already. Perhaps not the kind of in-depth interviews magazines lavish only onto Academy Awards winners, but certainly of a passable quality. We don't have higher standards on articles just because the article subject is underage. What's primarily wanted AFAIK is for Revord to have a second notable acting role ("multiple" means "more than one" if you read WP:NACTOR, and yes, I am aware "notable role" is shorthand for "significant role in notable work") CapnZapp (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not what we're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to rush here? She is young and is just starting out. And remember that Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Given how many times this draft has been rejected, it is probably a good idea to keep incubating it until it is actually ready for prime time. Nerd271 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second (or third) notable acting role is what got Olivia Rodrigo's draft page accepted, and that was a year or two before she started singing. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I called you out on your WP:DEADLINE BS last year, Nerd271, and I'm calling you out on it this year too. Please stop trying to pretend the argument "you're rushing it it's only been seven years" (which is what you're effectively saying) is anywhere close to reasonable. It's been seven years. Not seven days or even seven months. Nobody is "rushing" anything and I find your characterization of our efforts to improve Wikipedia deeply offensive! If you had only written your last sentence, that would have been one thing, but nope - you really like to slap good-faith editors in the face with "don't rush to edit: it is not a competition" (which is what your link leads to) as if deadlines aren't things that usually are measured in hours or days. Now stop denigrating our efforts as "rushing" it or trying to create a "scoop" (again what the linked essay is assuming)! Stop linking to a non-policy essay that is clearly not appropriate for this situation. CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People can link essays if they want to, the essays Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy and WP:JUSTANESSAY say so. You don't have to think what they say applies for the subject at hand. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it doesn't matter how long it has been. At present, the quality of this draft is not up to standards, hence its multiple rejections. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is unwise. And before you lecture me about "our" efforts to improve this page, I am one of the contributors to this draft. Nerd271 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [1] may be good for a GNG-point. It's not the best, but maybe acceptable-ish in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Quality of draft not being up to standard?" Excuse me? There are thousands, if not millions, of articles on living persons that are stubs, with a lot less information about the subject, that are published on enwiki. So that argument is very moot. This article should be published IMMEDIATELY. Marbe166 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marbe166: That may be true, but is irrelevant. We are not responsible for those pages. We are working on this one. Nerd271 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant at all. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is the COLLABORATIVE improvement of articles. If articles on subjects are hidden under drafts which are never published it completely contradicts the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is that you publish an inital version of an article, which the community then helps to improve. Again this article should be published immediately. Marbe166 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, your pressure tactics don't work. This draft is not yet ready for prime time. It stays where it is. People can continue to improve it in the mean time. Remember that the draft has been rejected on multiple occasions now. Nerd271 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This draft is not ready for prime time". That is your opinion, not a universal fact. The subject of the article is long overdue for a Wikipedia article, and this draft article is short but consise, and backed by numerous sources. There is no valid argument not to publish it. Do not revert the submission again. Marbe166 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ask other frequent editors and see what they think. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, NatGertler, and AngusWOOF: What do you guys think? Nerd271 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am dubious. She still does not meet WP:NACTOR, and all the coverage of her is within the context of that single role -- i.e., she isn't getting coverage for writing a book or being in a car accident plus being Missy, she's getting that coverage because of being Missy. Some of the references are easy to cast away in terms of significance -- multiple clickbait articles just to focus on a single sentence of a tweet talking about a project that she won't be in. But I've not spent much time seeing how GNG is interpreted in instances where more specific notability guidelines apply. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much that. Maybe her book will generate some coverage when released. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:NACTOR, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". If you argue that she fails to meet WP:NACTOR due to only having one significant role, then I argue that the article should be published despite that, due to the fact that that role is in such a successful TV series that is broadcast and streamed in many countries around the world, thus she has sufficient notability to warrant an article. Marbe166 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a reasonable argument for it being one notable roll. However, notability is not inherited. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking about inherited notability. She is notable all on her own, not because she is related to someone else. Marbe166 (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia discussion terms, WP:INHERITED means being linked to something notable or part of a group that's notable as a group. Yes, she works on a show that is notable, as do many other people. It isn't "her" project, she does not get primary credit for it. The "because she works on a notable show, she is notable" argument is one of inheritance. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers role[edit]

Her employer [2] says it was recurring, imdb [3] disagrees. Neither source is the best. Any comment on who got it right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can find zero indications the character of Melinda ever appeared in the indicated one episode. I would say that when our sources claim a role is "recurring" despite appearing in only one episode, we should chalk this up to "the role was intended to be recurring, but never actually was" (or, of course, a genuine mistake) and let our common sense override the source(s) in question. CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that mentions her Teachers role without suggesting she appeared in more than the one ep. CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having not seen the series in question, but having taken part in sitcom tapings with classroom settings, I think it possible that they used her afterward as one of the classroom seat-fillers in other episodes, with no speaking lines and thus no credits. As such, "recurring" would be right. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really include background extras in our definition of recurring role? CapnZapp (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be something that recurs, and that one episodes makes it not purely a background matter. I'm mainly noting that these varying descriptors from different sources could reasonably come from the same set of facts. (Although as a person whose best TV performing item on his resumé is playing a non-speaking Ben Franklin on two episodes of Teen Angel, I definitely choose it for myself!) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God... Facepalm Facepalm Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång This page can stay as a draft is that's the kind of sources you have found. Nerd271 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can you do. When I was looking for sources for Nicôle Lecky I came across https://www.wikifeet.com/Nic%C3%B4le_Lecky Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new source?[edit]

How is this? Maybe good enough to support the draft being accepted? https://www.looper.com/1471418/raegan-revord-young-sheldon-untold-truth/ Bertcocaine (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two hits on WP:RSN: [5]. It's not the best, WP:BLP-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote website: "Part of that is because our family of writers and editors are passionate cinephiles and superfans who obsess over all things TV, film, and Hollywood as much as our readers do. We're not really ones to put on a show in the background and casually watch it — we're the type of folks who binge the latest drama over a single weekend so we can explain all the Easter eggs and fan theories you've been wondering about, and we aren't afraid to share our honest thoughts." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Raegan_Revord&oldid=1222207092"