Jump to content

Talk:Raegan Revord

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

Requested move 19 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved And I'm going to immediately nominate it for AfD, since the topic's notability has been challenged * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Raegan Revord (Actress)Raegan Revord – As far as I can tell, at the time of this writing, Wikipedia does not have any other articles called Raegan Revord. If there (at least at the time of this writing) is no other article called Raegan Revord, why disambiguate this article's title as Raegan Revord (Actress) instead of just naming it Raegan Revord? Heart of Destruction (talk) 18:05, 19 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. ANUwrites 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anuwrites, can you show us the WP:THREE reliable sources that cover her bio? AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 17:28, 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? ANUwrites 20:20, 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.
Per the listed "decline" at Draft:Raegan Revord, WP:N has been an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.