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 delete. I think general consensus is to delete rather than draftify, but I don't mind undeleting and moving to draft if anyone wants to work on it there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raegan Revord[edit]

Raegan Revord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Citrivescence (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak delete: The role she has is in a good spot, a successful and respectable show... but it's still a single role, the fifth or sixth most important character in the piece. Argument on the article's talk page that she would be the only red-linked cast member is a form of WP:INHERITED; that she acts with notable people does not inherently make her notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, the nominator clearly has a beef, starting an AfD so soon after being forced to admit Draftifying was a mistake. There's hardly been any time to improve the refs. The nom slapped the notability template on the page exactly one minute before taking it to AfD. The nom claims "fails GNG" without any elaboration, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. This reeks of a case of following the rules to the letter, not the spirit. In light of this I ask that this AfD is, at the very least, put on hold for at least a week, to show minimal courtesy and allow a regular (non-infected, non-hysterical) "improve refs" discussion on the talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There's a lack of biographical independent sources, which is reasonable given her age: an understandable reluctance to start writing about children in a way that can stoke obsessive fan interest. This can wait I think. The redlink issue is easily resolved: don't link the name. Guy (help!) 11:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Keep: This is a borderline article, in my opinion. The subject is mentioned in a lot of sources, but there's little significant, in-depth coverage. Aside from her role in Young Sheldon, she also played the main character's younger self in the film, Wish Upon, which could go towards WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will note that the page is popular, getting about 20,000 views per month (and that was true even at the end of 2017 when she briefly had a page, which I think I may have prodded for WP:NACTOR - a status that I'm not convinced Wish Upon helps at all, unless we see some real coverage of that performance). Of course, popularity is not in itself a sufficient reason for keeping a page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article is a little bit on the WP:TOOSOON side, Nat Gertler, but close enough that I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Draftifying or Redirecting to Young Sheldon might be an idea if the consensus is to "Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep. She has been a regular for three seasons and this is not her first role. Her popularity, performances and her other work are well documented. Calling her not notable is an extraordinary claim. Bijdenhandje (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I want to note how wrong it feels to have a GNG discussion this way. I refuse to work with a sword hanging above my head. Yes, I could point out that no policy requires "biographical independent sources" or that "little significant, in-depth coverage" doesn't mean no such coverage. Or I could again ask the nom to expound on his assertion "fails GNG". Or I could ask you how bad it looks for every member of the main YS cast except a female having their own page. But I won't since red-tape formalists will still delete the article.

Contrast with a much more friendly good-faith-assuming way to approach the exact same steps:

1. ) first stating on talk "I consider moving this discussion to DRAFT. What do y'all say" instead of just assuming the article is a newb mistake, belittling everybody contributing to the article.
2. ) if that fails to achieve consensus, start a notability discussion (possibly involving the notability template) on the page, giving ample time for discussion, including specific advice on how to improve the article
   and only if that fails to satisfy the nom
3. ) list the article here at AfD

So again, don't be surprised of a lack of constructive input given the circumstances. Nobody wants to work this way. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• CapnZapp, I don't think this has anything to do with the sex of the subject. Quite simply, the actress is very young and hasn't yet attained a whole lot of coverage for the purposes of the notability guidelines. Personally, I'm okay with letting the article stand, because I'm confident that she will end up meeting the those guidelines without any problems. I'd also have no problem with the article being moved to "Draftspace", as you point out. But I don't see any bad faith here on the part of the nominator or other editors—just a concern, especially given her young age, that the subject is not yet ready to have a page. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete I am sick and tired of special pleading, and I am sick and tired of people creating articles on individuals before they are notable. We do not keep articles because we think the subject will become notable, we only keep articles on people who are notable now. The person here is not presently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She is already notable, please read the guidelines. Why should there be a special guideline for this person? Bijdenhandje (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bijdenhandje: Can you tell us in what way she meets the guideline, with sources? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the sources for her multiple roles are on her page and here. Her voiceacting and bookclub have not been added yet. She has a significant fanbase (see her Instagram amoung others). She does paid modelling work, gets stalked by paparazzi and is also in a recent COVID-19 campaign. I am not aware of any guideline that would make her not 'presently notable'. Bijdenhandje (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think for the multiple-roles thing, what people are tripping on here is the requirement that they be "significant" roles. I don't think anyone's denying that the Young Sheldon role qualifies as significant, but there is less certainty about others. Reviews in vital outlets that specifically called out her performance would help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Draftify or merge to Young Sheldon due to being to soon. Draftying has the advantage of allowing the original creator time to find sources and improve the article with them at least if some exist. Merging has its benefits also though. So I'm good with either. Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete No new sources added after a week, and none of the current ones helps with WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.