Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divas Lip Sync Live (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divas Lip Sync Live

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough reliably sourced information that stretches beyond a synopsis as which isn't already covered at RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3). Per WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE it is not warranted. At just 27 page views per day, on average, versus 1500 that the parent season gets, it would suggest that few people are actually interested/find the page. Most if not nearly all probably get all of the information they need from the parent season page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I wish nominator had shared concerns on the article's talk page and/or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before submitting, rather than nominating a bunch of articles at once as this make expanding difficult. I believe there's enough secondary coverage to justify keeping and improving, and ask the nominator to please slow down on nominating so many similar pages at once. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not create articles on the "expectation of notability" or "future notability when someone gets around to expanding it". The mainspace is not for drafts or partially complete articles. That's what sandboxes and the user space is for. We do not need articles for the sale of articles. Additionally, its not just about the lack of detail on the page, page views show it is unlikely that readers will find/come to the page. They're much more likely to find the information on the parent season's page as demonstrated by the page views. Its a weak keep at best if you're arguing for keep. I was cleaning up topics I am interested in - there's no laws against tagging/nominating things for deletion. WP:NEPISODE is clear about when things should and shouldn't be created. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many incomplete articles on Wikipedia. Completeness has nothing to do with notability, nor do page views. In the future, please base your deletion nomination arguments on secondary coverage and be sure to search WP:BEFORE nominating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divas Lip Sync Live. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For this subject, we've got notable people portraying notable people on a notable show. In the way of coverage, there's definitely ample coverage to meet notability requirements, including the New York Times here; Pride here; and others already used on the article. I'd also like to remind editors of WP:NOBODYREADSIT, which states "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." It doesn't matter if it's 27 or 27,000 readers a day; the article should be judged on its notability (which I think is met). --Kbabej (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was this renominated after the previous AfD? It does not appear that any WP:BEFORE was done. This article meets GNG as well as the (admittedly vague) requirements at WP:NEPISODE. Plenty of standalone coverage in RS and can be easily expanded. Low page views is not an argument for non-notability. Lots of FAs get fewer than 27 views per day (see, for example, Ferugliotheriidae). This, and the nominator's other points, have already been addressed at the previous AfD, where keep !votes were unanimous. Nothing has changed since then, apart from the article being improved.

Also, can this AfD somehow be bundled with the other five nearly identical AfDs started by the same nominator for articles about episodes of the same TV show on the same day? It does not seem productive to have the same discussion spread across multiple pages. Armadillo pteryx 23:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - I'm not a fan of these episode articles that say very little beyond what happened in the episode, and a couple of sentences of critical reception. However, this episode (and the others listed by the nominator) does meet the GNG by having coverage in independent, secondary sources. I may not like it, but that isn't a reason to delete something, nor is a lack of page-views, as discussed above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NEPISODE. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[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.