Draft talk:Raegan Revord

1259:. 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. 1421:). 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. 836:

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 Knowledge 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.

1694:. 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 Knowledge contribute to that. 2838: 855:"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 1101:) - 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 Knowledge" 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 341: 317: 568:

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 Knowledge. 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

1608:. 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 Knowledge 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. 426: 351: 438: 261: 953: 143: 119: 88: 2792: 251: 976:. 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 Knowledge." The topic is most definitely notable enough, its just that the article needs to wait until Revord scores her second significant role, satisfying NACTOR. 233: 205: 2602: 21: 689:

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:

153: 2097:"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 2301:"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 Knowledge 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. 751:, 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 1163:, 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 1630:. 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. 2745:

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

1240:

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

2353:

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

1750:

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

1331:

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

1128:

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

729:

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

673:

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 Knowledge article, and it is solely procedure that keeps that from happening). To phrase that

2096:

Not seven days or even seven months. Nobody is "rushing" anything and I find your characterization of our efforts to improve Knowledge 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

1965:

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

1853:

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

653:

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

2171:

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

2382:

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

1235:

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

1021:

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 Knowledge

854:

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

2490:

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

688:

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

567:

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 Knowledge. (Don't expect to be able to have a movie career anonymously, is all I'm saying)

2258:

It is not irrelevant at all. The whole purpose of Knowledge 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 Knowledge, which is that you publish an inital version of an

835:

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

1185:

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

2523:

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. --

2429:

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

1514:

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

510:

That link only illustrates how some Wikipedians can't see beyond strict rules. Revord clearly deserves a Knowledge 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

1022:

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.

2560:

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

1589:

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.

1167:

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,

2383:

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.

1290:

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.

674:

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 Knowledge, don't do anything notable". Have a nice day

1265:

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

600:

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

1451:

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

1854:

english Knowledge 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?

1530:

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...)

1636:

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

2280:

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.

893:

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.

1763:. 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. 2092:, 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. 550: 2943: 2132: 2938: 1475: 451: 327: 2349:, 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 1516: 2978: 1510:

To date, Revord has been in 127 episodes of a popular internationally-syndicated program. For there to be no appropriately sourced Knowledge article about her is illogical. I do acknowledge that

1784:

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.

632: 1823:

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. --

1655:

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

381: 478:

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.

1885:-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. 1347:

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.

1439:

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,

2988: 67: 788:

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

2948: 398: 2983: 2993: 1456:, 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. 1379:

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.

1164: 1102: 633:

Corona Chronicles: ‘Tiger King,’ Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Creative Spark and a Singer Faces Backlash After Testing Positive, by Variety Editors (including Raegan Revord)

2868:

Your missed her read with Raegan thing she does for books and her website and the place you talk about her it’s suppose to be is working in instead of what is there

1411:

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,

2746:

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.

1545:

May I remind you guys that Knowledge does not have a deadline. It is better to focus on making this draft a high-quality one before making it a regular article.

2973: 785: 492: 31: 1949:

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. --

72: 2211:, 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. 2998: 2968: 781: 388: 214: 129: 55:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2958: 1137:

the draft, because that means it is wholly unsuitable to Knowledge and would be uncontroversially deleted at AfD, which is not the case if the person is

1365:? 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. 1133:

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

1141:

reaching the notability threshold. Reviewers sometimes reject when the draft has been repeatedly resubmitted with no real improvement, considering it

2963: 2953: 393: 2662:

The Internet is a wild feral place. Let's see if we can make this article a good one. It's going to take a couple of years at this rate, I reckon.

1612:

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.

2933: 171: 47: 2018:. 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. 1447:

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

1040: 730:

fine despite having less credits, and only one that could be considered "signifigant" (the meaning of which you declined to discuss further?):

1236:

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

1109:'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. 283: 2912: 2754: 2732: 2650: 2612: 2588: 2480: 2373: 2198: 2144: 1997: 1930: 1890: 1741: 1572: 1483: 1402: 772: 591: 558: 500: 1855: 175: 1263:

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:

364: 322: 1520: 1626:

I don't think bringing up "Knowledge does not have a deadline" is a good choice when you want other editors to sit on their hands for

376: 179: 2207:"Quality of draft not being up to standard?" Excuse me? There are thousands, if not millions, of articles on living persons that are 170:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2470: 274: 238: 2908: 2750: 2728: 2659: 2646: 2621: 2608: 2584: 2476: 2369: 2318: 2194: 2140: 1993: 1926: 1886: 1737: 1715: 1609: 1568: 1479: 1398: 768: 587: 554: 496: 2063: 1914: 1224: 807: 166: 124: 960:

Once again, the decliner is very terse here. The article subject is certainly notable. The problem is instead specific to our

2015: 1669:

is tagged for notability. (But I will agree that the shouldn't-have-an-article-because-she's-alive argument is bizarre.) --

1786:

If you choose to quote other people, make sure you quote them exactly. Your first quote of me was correct. This one is not.

372:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

1142: 899: 850:

Despite what the decline boilerplate text (on the article page) says, there's nothing wrong with the references here. The

2411:

Nobody is talking about inherited notability. She is notable all on her own, not because she is related to someone else.

99: 821:

I'm sorry but I don't understand what this means. If the other responses (just above) helped you, maybe that's okay...

2563: 2506: 2187: 1246: 1150: 2849: 1559:

Fwiw, I've been adding some ok-ish sources recently, and I think there's a chance the next reviewer may come to a

1007:, that's the end of the story for now. If she becomes more notable in the future, she could cross the threshold. 1268:

What can I do otherwise? Submit and resubmit the draft until I get lucky? Respectfully (but exasperatedly) yours

609: 27: 1036:

Gotcha. I don't deal with AFC much. This might be something we should raise there, for improved wording of the

895: 1859: 582:

Per the afd, I'm not unlikely to side with the stickling arcane bureaucrats (quite possibly aligned with the

2798: 56: 2699: 1256: 1242: 1160: 1146: 1106: 748: 2243:

That may be true, but is irrelevant. We are not responsible for those pages. We are working on this one.

2873: 2823: 2706: 2136: 841: 738: 699: 602: 105: 2897: 2869: 2819: 2572: 2529: 2435: 2402: 2397:

So that's a reasonable argument for it being one notable roll. However, notability is not inherited.

2359: 1954: 1828: 1674: 1661:, only the actors who played the baby remain without an article, and that's fine.) Notability is not 1657: 1209:

It's terse on the article page, and discussed thoroughly here. It's also discussed at the AFD page.

1189: 913: 605: 356: 66:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 529:

That takeaway too, sure. However, the afd was a year ago, better sources may have appeared. I think

20: 2426: 2057: 1908: 1662: 1634:

So having an entire Knowledge article about her while she is still alive does not seem appropriate.

1394: 1218: 1064: 991:

That's even more confusing I think. Not meeting the notability criteria is exactly synonymous with

801: 1186:

denial, not all of them). Since I am not a draft reviewer, the means I have to my disposal is the

964:

guideline, notability for actors. This submission is declined because Revord so far does not have

2547: 2514: 2496: 2416: 2388: 2306: 2267: 2216: 2106: 1979: 1814: 1768: 1644: 1595: 1586: 1536: 1461: 1426: 1384: 1370: 1352: 1338: 1296: 1273: 1237: 1199: 1173: 1114: 1072: 1027: 981: 935: 866: 826: 720: 679: 639: 573: 516: 483: 70:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 340: 316: 2887: 2857: 2770: 2667: 2629: 2336: 2286: 2248: 2177: 2023: 1792: 1727: 1699: 1617: 1550: 659: 583: 443: 266: 541:. I remember thinking at some point "I should be able to create an article about her" (I'm a 2845: 2702: 2346: 2014:

I don't see the need to rush here? She is young and is just starting out. And remember that

1971: 1051: 1012: 961: 921: 837: 734: 712: 708: 695: 670: 546: 538: 158: 2259:

article, which the community then helps to improve. Again this article should be published

2844:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

2568: 2525: 2431: 2398: 2355: 2322: 1974:, and yes, I am aware "notable role" is shorthand for "significant role in notable work") 1950: 1824: 1709: 1670: 1145:. Rejecting an article that is 'otherwise ok' is sending the wrong message to the author. 475: 279: 63: 2639: 2509:

that mentions her Teachers role without suggesting she appeared in more than the one ep.

2491:

course, a genuine mistake) and let our common sense override the source(s) in question.

1751:

minors) is not directed at you. But your attempts at defusing the issue (select "gems":

1690:

Being antagonistic towards other editors will not do you any good. No, my point is that

425: 2539: 2326: 2049: 2045: 1900: 1666: 1448: 1210: 1098: 909: 793: 789: 2927: 2724: 2717: 2543: 2510: 2492: 2412: 2384: 2302: 2263: 2238: 2212: 2102: 1975: 1874: 1870: 1810: 1779: 1764: 1712: 1640: 1605: 1591: 1532: 1457: 1422: 1412: 1380: 1366: 1362: 1348: 1334: 1306: 1292: 1269: 1195: 1169: 1130: 1110: 1094: 1068: 1023: 977: 931: 862: 822: 752: 716: 675: 635: 569: 534: 512: 479: 369: 2597: 1809:) and the third uses to indicate the quote is partial. All are very much correct. 437: 260: 2883: 2853: 2766: 2663: 2625: 2332: 2282: 2244: 2173: 2089: 2019: 1882: 1788: 1723: 1695: 1613: 1582: 1546: 1089:

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

764: 655: 530: 1804: 1060: 1047: 1008: 917: 282:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can 2139:

say so. You don't have to think what they say applies for the subject at hand.

2048:'s draft page accepted, and that was a year or two before she started singing. 142: 118: 2916: 2891: 2877: 2861: 2827: 2774: 2758: 2736: 2710: 2671: 2654: 2633: 2616: 2592: 2576: 2556:

It would seem to be something that recurs, and that one episodes makes it not

2551: 2533: 2518: 2500: 2484: 2439: 2420: 2406: 2392: 2377: 2363: 2340: 2310: 2290: 2271: 2252: 2220: 2202: 2181: 2148: 2110: 2069: 2027: 2001: 1983: 1958: 1934: 1920: 1894: 1863: 1832: 1818: 1796: 1772: 1745: 1731: 1703: 1678: 1648: 1621: 1599: 1576: 1554: 1540: 1524: 1487: 1465: 1430: 1406: 1388: 1374: 1356: 1342: 1313:

did not write anything specific about WP:NACTOR, something along the lines of

1300: 1277: 1250: 1230: 1203: 1177: 1154: 1118: 1076: 1055: 1031: 1016: 985: 939: 925: 903: 870: 845: 830: 813: 776: 742: 724: 703: 683: 663: 643: 613: 595: 577: 562: 520: 504: 487: 433: 346: 256: 148: 2643: 1899:

not really. minor tweaking of a source since october 2023 submit and decline

2624:

This page can stay as a draft is that's the kind of sources you have found.

2368:

Pretty much that. Maybe her book will generate some coverage when released.

669:

That is not how Knowledge works. The sole reason this is a draft is because

1415:? You're making this discussion feel like weeks of completely wasted time ( 368:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 1801:

There are three quotes, the first two separated by a comma (each within a

278:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about 2700:

https://www.looper.com/1471418/raegan-revord-young-sheldon-untold-truth/

2475:

disagrees. Neither source is the best. Any comment on who got it right?

1759:

and why on earth are you presuming I think "notability is INHERITED"?)

204: 2473: 2601: 1873:

and the rest of this talkpage. What's primarily wanted are some great

250: 232: 603:

https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/raegan-revord/credits/3000788882/

2698:

How is this? Maybe good enough to support the draft being accepted?

1718:

To reiterate to everyone here, the point is that we are working on

553:

to consider. Not that I think you or Campycipro are Raegan Revord.

178:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2904: 2744: 1567:

conclusion. Time will tell, the article is currently submitted.

1315:

This submission is declined because Revord so far does not have

747:

Each language version of WP sets their own rules (PAG). And per

2133:

Knowledge:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy

1476:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (3rd nomination)

545:-fan), but nope, not enough sources at the time. There is also 2786: 1562: 81: 62:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

39: 15: 1753:

May I remind you guys that Knowledge does not have a deadline

2538:

Do we really include background extras in our definition of

1470:

That's pretty much how I think of it. For example, here's a

731: 424: 203: 1736:

I said something similar in the first thread on this page.

551:

WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

2765:

Let's keep it for now until we can find something better.

2315:

Let's ask other frequent editors and see what they think.

1435:

NACTOR is neither a guarantee nor a requirement, it is an

1309:

Thank you for your rapid response/AFC action. However you

692: 715:. Different languages of Knowledge have different rules. 2944:

NA-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles

1443:

there is significant independent coverage. She can also

930:

Kinda funny, but it seems like that's what will happen.

819:

I meant it leads to itself having gone nowhere inbetween

2901: 2721: 2582: 1454:

never agreed NACTOR was the thing holding back the page

1417: 858:

our Young Sheldon article features exactly one red link

857: 2939:

Draft-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles

2044:

The second (or third) notable acting role is what got

533:

are to some degree careful about covering kids, hence

2638:

What can you do. When I was looking for sources for

2979:

Draft-Class United States articles of NA-importance

2131:People can link essays if they want to, the essays 2088:I called you out on your WP:DEADLINE BS last year, 2882:Do you have a reliable secondary source for that? 1329:or, if you prefer Curb Safe Charmer's suggestion: 2903:, but what you did wasn't a good idea. She's not 2832:I want to fix some errors so it can be published 1849:How is there still a discussion about notability? 1194:, so that's what I will keep using. Thanks all! 763:She is also older, which I think makes BLP-good 1474:afd on a politician who never won an election: 1970:("multiple" means "more than one" if you read 1722:. Care should be taken. Sorry I wasn't clear. 1103:extra detail it should have had from the start 786:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord 784:had a 2020 discussion that resulted in keep. 493:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord 8: 2900:, not sure what you were trying to do here 2783:Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024 782:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kiera Allen 2989:NA-importance American television articles 2644:https://www.wikifeet.com/Nic%C3%B4le_Lecky 1261:But none of this fixes the actual problem! 311: 227: 113: 2949:Actors and filmmakers work group articles 2567:, I definitely choose it for myself!) -- 98:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 2984:Draft-Class American television articles 654:can continue to update it as necessary. 537:can take awhile, compare the history at 2994:American television task force articles 2193:, but maybe acceptable-ish in context. 2172:one of the contributors to this draft. 1517:2001:8004:1160:2E08:803A:D6A0:AE4C:40D8 313: 229: 115: 2345:I am dubious. She still does not meet 2189:may be good for a GNG-point. It's not 1756: 1752: 1633: 1453: 1330: 1314: 1264: 818: 693:https://fr.wikipedia.org/Raegan_Revord 1992:Interviews are not what we're after. 889:112 (One Hundred and Twelve Episodes) 767:more willing to cover her in detail. 7: 2974:NA-importance United States articles 732:https://en.wikipedia.org/Kiera_Allen 409:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 104:It is of interest to the following 2999:WikiProject United States articles 2969:Draft-Class United States articles 2016:Knowledge does not have a deadline 412:Template:WikiProject United States 87: 85: 14: 2959:NA-importance television articles 1945:I question the claim that she is 1323:films, tv shows, etc, that means 972:films, tv shows, etc, that means 362:This page is within the scope of 272:This page is within the scope of 215:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers 164:This page is within the scope of 2836: 2790: 2600: 2354:notability guidelines apply. -- 1046:message (feel free to ping me). 951: 436: 349: 339: 315: 292:Knowledge:WikiProject Television 259: 249: 231: 151: 141: 117: 86: 45:This article must adhere to the 30:on 17 March 2020. The result of 19: 2964:WikiProject Television articles 2954:Draft-Class television articles 2425:In Knowledge discussion terms, 295:Template:WikiProject Television 188:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 26:This article was nominated for 2934:Draft-Class biography articles 1720:a biography of a living person 1604:Civility will serve you well, 452:American television task force 191:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 1488:11:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 1466:09:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 1431:09:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 1393:GNG "rules" them all. Except 1178:17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1155:18:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 1119:16:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 1077:08:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC) 1056:20:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 1041:AfC submission/reject reasons 1032:18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 1017:07:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 986:16:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC) 940:13:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) 684:09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 664:04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC) 644:10:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC) 48:biographies of living persons 2472:says it was recurring, imdb 1407:08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 1389:08:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 1375:21:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 1361:What are you talking about, 1357:21:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 1343:21:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 1301:14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 1278:14:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC) 1251:10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC) 1231:23:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC) 1204:13:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC) 926:03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC) 904:02:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) 614:04:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 176:contribute to the discussion 2917:05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2813:to reactivate your request. 2801:has been answered. Set the 1241:the queue for us to do so. 711:leads to the same place as 60:must be removed immediately 3015: 1968:second notable acting role 1877:-good independent sources 1319:- when NACTOR talks about 1159:Sure... but the problem, @ 968:- when NACTOR talks about 949: 861:, that of a female actor. 725:22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 704:03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 449:This page is supported by 212:This page is supported by 2892:21:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2878:05:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2862:05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2828:05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2759:15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2737:15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2711:14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2617:16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2593:16:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2577:15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2552:14:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2534:14:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2519:13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2501:13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2485:08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2203:16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2182:15:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2149:08:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2111:07:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2070:22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2028:20:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2002:17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1984:17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1959:15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1935:16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 1921:22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1895:13:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1864:18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1317:a second significant role 966:a second significant role 671:our own internal policies 432: 365:WikiProject United States 334: 244: 211: 136: 112: 2775:16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) 2672:16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) 2331:What do you guys think? 1966:is for Revord to have a 1833:15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 1819:14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 1797:14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 1773:06:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC) 1757:while she is still alive 1746:14:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1732:14:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1704:13:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1679:13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1649:13:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1622:22:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1600:21:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1577:15:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1555:13:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1541:12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1525:10:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 871:11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC) 846:21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 831:21:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 814:16:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 777:14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 743:13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 628:Variety short essay link 370:United States of America 2655:15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2634:15:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2440:14:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2421:09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2407:00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2393:21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2378:20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2364:20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2341:18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2311:18:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2291:17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2272:16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2253:15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2221:15:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) 2099:clearly not appropriate 1107:User: Curb Safe Charmer 995:. If she's not notable 596:16:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 578:13:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 563:10:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 521:10:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 505:10:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 488:09:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC) 2846:"change X to Y" format 2094:It's been seven years. 1925:Hope springs eternal. 1515:WP:NACTOR is invoked. 1257:User:Curb Safe Charmer 495:could be of interest. 429: 415:United States articles 275:WikiProject Television 208: 2723:. It's not the best, 1665:. And at the moment, 956:Moved from Draft page 428: 207: 167:WikiProject Biography 130:Actors and Filmmakers 2101:for this situation. 1658:Three Men and a Baby 357:United States portal 1761:sure aren't helping 1692:she is just a child 1418:I started it Nov 16 1143:tendentious editing 1105:(I am referring to 896:James Kevin McMahon 761:The New York Times. 755:-good sources like 584:Auditors of Reality 383:Articles Requested! 298:television articles 284:join the discussion 280:television programs 2909:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2751:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2729:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2660:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2647:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2622:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2609:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2585:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2477:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2370:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2319:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2195:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2141:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2054: 1994:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1927:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1905: 1887:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1738:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1716:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1610:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1569:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1480:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1399:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1215: 993:not notable enough 798: 769:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 588:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 555:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 497:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 474:Just want to ping 430: 209: 194:biography articles 100:content assessment 2817: 2816: 2050: 1901: 1243:Curb Safe Charmer 1211: 1147:Curb Safe Charmer 999:(even if she has 794: 467: 466: 463: 462: 459: 458: 444:Television portal 310: 309: 306: 305: 267:Television portal 226: 225: 222: 221: 80: 79: 38: 37: 3006: 2852:if appropriate. 2840: 2839: 2808: 2804: 2794: 2793: 2787: 2604: 2430:inheritance. -- 2330: 2242: 2066: 2060: 2053: 1917: 1911: 1904: 1808: 1783: 1420: 1227: 1221: 1214: 1193: 1045: 1039: 955: 954: 860: 810: 804: 797: 539:Scarlett Estevez 470:Article creation 446: 441: 440: 417: 416: 413: 410: 407: 359: 354: 353: 352: 343: 336: 335: 330: 319: 312: 300: 299: 296: 293: 290: 269: 264: 263: 253: 246: 245: 235: 228: 196: 195: 192: 189: 186: 172:join the project 161: 159:Biography portal 156: 155: 154: 145: 138: 137: 132: 121: 114: 91: 90: 89: 82: 68:this noticeboard 40: 23: 16: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2924: 2923: 2850:reliable source 2837: 2830: 2806: 2802: 2791: 2785: 2741:Quote website: 2696: 2467: 2316: 2236: 2064: 2058: 2051: 1915: 1909: 1902: 1851: 1802: 1777: 1508: 1416: 1288: 1225: 1219: 1212: 1187: 1165:change proposal 1091: 1063:You might find 1043: 1037: 958: 957: 952: 948: 912:does not equal 891: 856: 808: 802: 795: 749:WP:OTHERCONTENT 651: 630: 606:Alden Loveshade 476:User:Campycipro 472: 442: 435: 414: 411: 408: 405: 404: 403: 389:Become a Member 355: 350: 348: 325: 297: 294: 291: 288: 287: 265: 258: 193: 190: 187: 184: 183: 157: 152: 150: 127: 12: 11: 5: 3012: 3010: 3002: 3001: 2996: 2991: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2894: 2865: 2864: 2848:and provide a 2818: 2815: 2814: 2795: 2784: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2761: 2739: 2695: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2642:I came across 2595: 2540:recurring role 2466: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2380: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2275: 2274: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2205: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2137:WP:JUSTANESSAY 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2046:Olivia Rodrigo 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1987: 1986: 1962: 1961: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1856:109.250.221.72 1850: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1667:Montana Jordan 1653: 1652: 1651: 1638: 1631: 1585:, bringing up 1581:With respect, 1579: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1409: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1255:Sorry but no, 1233: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1099:User:AngusWOOF 1090: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 950: 947: 944: 943: 942: 928: 890: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 816: 790:Olivia Rodrigo 779: 690: 650: 647: 629: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 524: 523: 471: 468: 465: 464: 461: 460: 457: 456: 448: 447: 431: 421: 420: 418: 402: 401: 396: 391: 386: 379: 377:Template Usage 373: 361: 360: 344: 332: 331: 320: 308: 307: 304: 303: 301: 271: 270: 254: 242: 241: 236: 224: 223: 220: 219: 210: 200: 199: 197: 163: 162: 146: 134: 133: 122: 110: 109: 103: 92: 78: 77: 73:this help page 57:poorly sourced 43: 36: 35: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3011: 3000: 2997: 2995: 2992: 2990: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2962: 2960: 2957: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2937: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2929: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2812: 2809:parameter to 2800: 2796: 2789: 2788: 2782: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2693: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2471: 2469:Her employer 2464: 2461: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2240: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2071: 2067: 2061: 2055: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1912: 1906: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1848: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1806: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1781: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1564: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1513: 1512:Young Sheldon 1505: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1328: 1326: 1325:more than one 1322: 1318: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1285: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1232: 1228: 1222: 1216: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1191: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095:User:Primefac 1088: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1067:interesting. 1066: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1042: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974:more than one 971: 967: 963: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914:WP:NOTABILITY 911: 908: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 888: 872: 868: 864: 859: 853: 849: 848: 847: 843: 839: 834: 833: 832: 828: 824: 820: 817: 815: 811: 805: 799: 791: 787: 783: 780: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 733: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 694: 691: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 672: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 657: 648: 646: 645: 641: 637: 634: 627: 615: 611: 607: 604: 599: 598: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 580: 579: 575: 571: 566: 565: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 526: 525: 522: 518: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 489: 485: 481: 477: 469: 454: 453: 445: 439: 434: 427: 423: 422: 419: 406:United States 400: 397: 395: 392: 390: 387: 385: 384: 380: 378: 375: 374: 371: 367: 366: 358: 347: 345: 342: 338: 337: 333: 329: 324: 323:United States 321: 318: 314: 302: 285: 281: 277: 276: 268: 262: 257: 255: 252: 248: 247: 243: 240: 237: 234: 230: 217: 216: 206: 202: 201: 198: 181: 180:documentation 177: 173: 169: 168: 160: 149: 147: 144: 140: 139: 135: 131: 126: 123: 120: 116: 111: 107: 101: 97: 93: 84: 83: 75: 74: 69: 65: 61: 58: 54: 50: 49: 44: 42: 41: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2841: 2831: 2810: 2799:edit request 2742: 2716:Two hits on 2697: 2640:Nicôle Lecky 2605: 2562: 2557: 2468: 2462: 2427:WP:INHERITED 2350: 2261:immediately. 2260: 2235: 2208: 2190: 2098: 2093: 1967: 1946: 1881:. Being 16, 1878: 1852: 1785: 1760: 1719: 1691: 1689: 1663:WP:INHERITED 1656: 1627: 1560: 1511: 1509: 1471: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1395:WP:NACADEMIC 1324: 1320: 1316: 1310: 1289: 1286:Resubmitting 1260: 1238:AfC helpdesk 1184: 1138: 1134: 1125: 1092: 1005:at this time 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 973: 969: 965: 959: 892: 851: 760: 756: 652: 631: 542: 491: 473: 450: 394:Project Talk 382: 363: 273: 213: 165: 106:WikiProjects 95: 71: 59: 52: 46: 2898:Ctorres1995 2870:Ctorres1995 2820:Ctorres1995 2703:Bertcocaine 2694:new source? 2569:Nat Gertler 2526:Nat Gertler 2432:Nat Gertler 2399:Nat Gertler 2356:Nat Gertler 2052:AngusW🐶🐶F 1951:Nat Gertler 1903:AngusW🐶🐶F 1825:Nat Gertler 1671:Nat Gertler 1587:WP:DEADLINE 1565:, why not." 1213:AngusW🐶🐶F 1190:AfC comment 946:AFC comment 838:Bertcocaine 796:AngusW🐶🐶F 735:Bertcocaine 696:Bertcocaine 34:was Delete. 2928:Categories 2803:|answered= 2564:Teen Angel 2323:NatGertler 1710:NatGertler 1437:indication 1266:guideline. 328:Television 289:Television 239:Television 2842:Not done: 2598:Oh God... 2347:WP:NACTOR 2327:AngusWOOF 1972:WP:NACTOR 1879:about her 1628:six years 1332:(actors). 1135:rejecting 1126:declining 962:WP:NACTOR 713:WP:NACTOR 709:WP:NMODEL 547:WP:MINORS 185:Biography 125:Biography 64:libellous 2606:Facepalm 2544:CapnZapp 2511:CapnZapp 2507:a source 2493:CapnZapp 2463:Teachers 2413:Marbe166 2385:Marbe166 2303:Marbe166 2264:Marbe166 2239:Marbe166 2213:Marbe166 2191:the best 2103:CapnZapp 1976:CapnZapp 1811:CapnZapp 1780:CapnZapp 1765:CapnZapp 1713:CapnZapp 1641:CapnZapp 1606:CapnZapp 1592:CapnZapp 1533:CapnZapp 1458:Primefac 1423:CapnZapp 1413:Primefac 1381:Primefac 1367:CapnZapp 1363:Primefac 1349:Primefac 1335:CapnZapp 1321:multiple 1307:Primefac 1293:CapnZapp 1270:CapnZapp 1196:CapnZapp 1170:CapnZapp 1111:CapnZapp 1069:CapnZapp 1024:CapnZapp 978:CapnZapp 970:multiple 932:WikiTG99 863:CapnZapp 823:CapnZapp 717:CapnZapp 676:CapnZapp 649:Too soon 636:CapnZapp 570:CapnZapp 513:CapnZapp 480:CapnZapp 28:deletion 2884:Nerd271 2854:Liu1126 2767:Nerd271 2727:-wise. 2664:Nerd271 2626:Nerd271 2581:Update: 2505:Here's 2351:because 2333:Nerd271 2325:, and 2283:Nerd271 2245:Nerd271 2174:Nerd271 2090:Nerd271 2020:Nerd271 1789:Nerd271 1724:Nerd271 1696:Nerd271 1637:minors. 1614:Nerd271 1583:Nerd271 1547:Nerd271 1506:Overdue 1449:WP:PROF 910:WP:FAME 757:Variety 656:Nerd271 543:Lucifer 2725:WP:BLP 2718:WP:RSN 2558:purely 1875:WP:BLP 1871:WP:GNG 1139:almost 1131:WP:NYA 1093:Hello 1061:DMacks 1048:DMacks 1009:DMacks 997:enough 918:DMacks 753:WP:GNG 535:WP:GNG 399:Alerts 102:scale. 2807:|ans= 2797:This 2209:stubs 2186:This 2065:sniff 1916:sniff 1883:WP:RS 1311:still 1226:sniff 1124:When 1097:(and 809:sniff 765:WP:RS 531:WP:RS 96:draft 94:This 2913:talk 2905:Cher 2888:talk 2874:talk 2858:talk 2824:talk 2771:talk 2755:talk 2733:talk 2707:talk 2668:talk 2651:talk 2630:talk 2613:talk 2589:talk 2573:talk 2548:talk 2530:talk 2515:talk 2497:talk 2481:talk 2465:role 2436:talk 2417:talk 2403:talk 2389:talk 2374:talk 2360:talk 2337:talk 2307:talk 2287:talk 2268:talk 2249:talk 2217:talk 2199:talk 2178:talk 2145:talk 2135:and 2107:talk 2059:bark 2024:talk 1998:talk 1980:talk 1955:talk 1931:talk 1910:bark 1891:talk 1869:See 1860:talk 1829:talk 1815:talk 1793:talk 1769:talk 1742:talk 1728:talk 1700:talk 1675:talk 1645:talk 1618:talk 1596:talk 1573:talk 1551:talk 1537:talk 1521:talk 1484:talk 1472:keep 1462:talk 1427:talk 1403:talk 1385:talk 1371:talk 1353:talk 1339:talk 1297:talk 1274:talk 1247:talk 1220:bark 1200:talk 1174:talk 1151:talk 1115:talk 1073:talk 1065:this 1052:talk 1028:talk 1013:talk 1001:some 982:talk 936:talk 922:talk 900:talk 867:talk 852:only 842:talk 827:talk 803:bark 773:talk 759:and 739:talk 721:talk 700:talk 680:talk 660:talk 640:talk 610:talk 592:talk 574:talk 559:talk 549:and 517:talk 501:talk 484:talk 174:and 2805:or 1947:the 1563:Meh 1445:not 1161:CSC 586:). 53:BLP 2930:: 2915:) 2907:. 2890:) 2876:) 2860:) 2826:) 2811:no 2773:) 2757:) 2735:) 2720:: 2709:) 2670:) 2653:) 2632:) 2615:) 2591:) 2575:) 2550:) 2542:? 2532:) 2517:) 2499:) 2483:) 2438:) 2419:) 2405:) 2391:) 2376:) 2362:) 2339:) 2321:, 2309:) 2289:) 2270:) 2251:) 2219:) 2201:) 2180:) 2147:) 2109:) 2068:) 2062:• 2026:) 2000:) 1982:) 1957:) 1933:) 1919:) 1913:• 1893:) 1862:) 1831:) 1817:) 1807:}} 1805:tq 1803:{{ 1795:) 1771:) 1755:, 1744:) 1730:) 1702:) 1677:) 1647:) 1620:) 1598:) 1575:) 1553:) 1539:) 1523:) 1486:) 1478:. 1464:) 1441:if 1429:) 1405:) 1397:. 1387:) 1373:) 1355:) 1341:) 1299:) 1276:) 1249:) 1229:) 1223:• 1202:) 1192:}} 1188:{{ 1176:) 1153:) 1117:) 1075:) 1054:) 1044:}} 1038:{{ 1030:) 1015:) 1003:) 984:) 938:) 924:) 916:. 902:) 869:) 844:) 829:) 812:) 806:• 792:. 775:) 741:) 723:) 702:) 682:) 662:) 642:) 612:) 594:) 576:) 561:) 519:) 503:) 486:) 326:: 128:: 2911:( 2896:@ 2886:( 2872:( 2856:( 2822:( 2769:( 2753:( 2748:" 2743:" 2731:( 2705:( 2666:( 2649:( 2628:( 2611:( 2587:( 2571:( 2546:( 2528:( 2513:( 2495:( 2479:( 2434:( 2415:( 2401:( 2387:( 2372:( 2358:( 2335:( 2329:: 2317:@ 2305:( 2285:( 2266:( 2247:( 2241:: 2237:@ 2215:( 2197:( 2176:( 2143:( 2105:( 2056:( 2022:( 1996:( 1978:( 1953:( 1929:( 1907:( 1889:( 1858:( 1827:( 1813:( 1791:( 1782:: 1778:@ 1767:( 1740:( 1726:( 1698:( 1673:( 1643:( 1616:( 1594:( 1571:( 1561:" 1549:( 1535:( 1519:( 1482:( 1460:( 1425:( 1401:( 1383:( 1369:( 1351:( 1337:( 1327:, 1295:( 1272:( 1245:( 1217:( 1198:( 1172:( 1149:( 1113:( 1071:( 1050:( 1026:( 1011:( 980:( 934:( 920:( 898:( 865:( 840:( 825:( 800:( 771:( 737:( 719:( 698:( 678:( 658:( 638:( 608:( 590:( 572:( 557:( 515:( 499:( 482:( 455:. 286:. 218:. 182:. 108:: 76:. 51:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index