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 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
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 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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
It is because Raegan Revord is indefinitely fully protected from creation due to repeated recreations. It's been awhile so hopefully someone with more knowledge about its history can decide if it should be G4'd or similar. Skynxnex (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err... To be fair the sources on the current page are all published after the AfD succeeded. A quick read of the archive informs me that the repeatedly recreated former version had WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON issues. Given that the subject was younger in 2020 (at the time of the AfD), I guess that had to happen. If I had the time I could take a look at all the sources to see if they repeat the same issue here, but I don't. RM should be made as long as it doesn't get g4'd, but I can't support or oppose the G4 here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I just find this run-around the salting with a new draft at a carefully name that's different than the long-time declined draft mentioned by Gråbergs Gråa Sång by a so far SPA is a bit concerning, itself. But I agree it's probably out of scope for a RM. Skynxnex (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this page's reviewer at AFC, I had made horrible mistake which I resolved here as asked by @Skynxnex. I would still appreciate if the page is moved to Raegan Revord when the name is unprotected to avoid such disambiguation. ANUwrites16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Back to draft Is she notable now? I still don't see any major roles since Young Sheldon. It looks like it was game-created to bypass the salt, so I would throw it back to draft where it belongs. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking @AngusWOOF, I think being notable was never the issue, to say is she notable now?WP:TOOSOON was the main reason for initial denial if I'm not mistaken. As for WP:THREE that cover her bio, I see she passes WP:BASIC (atleast 4 reliable and independent to the subject references) and WP:NACTOR (role in major films, which she undoubtedly passes), she too got no bio written in the article to cite any reliable sources for the bio (just a birthdate which is cited in references). Do you still think it should be deleted? ANUwrites20:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant roles" per your link. Which are the 4 reliable and Independent WP:GNG-good sources you see in the current article? People is mostly quotes, 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.
