Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Queen Show

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 redirect‎ to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). As an ATD and also because there is clearly one editor (and maybe an entire WikiProject) that wants to work on improving. If there is an objection to having individual articles on each episode of a TV series, that is a larger discussion that would need to take place and would affect many articles we have on dozens of popular TV programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bundled nomination was not set up according to the instructions at WP:AFD so I will have to handle each article individually. Give me a little time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-Queen Show

[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)

Individual episodes of reality competition shows are generally not notable. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) (#Episodes) has summaries and key content of each episode of the season – with plenty of space to expand as well. While media websites may recap episodes, per WP:NOPAGE there is no need for individual articles for every one, especially not bulk-produced with just worthless single sentences.

Also listing

The Ball Ball
World's Worst (RuPaul's Drag Race)
Choices 2020
Droop (RuPaul's Drag Race)
Superfan Makeover
You Don't Know Me (RuPaul's Drag Race)
Gay's Anatomy
Viva Drag Vegas Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per page creator. As nominator has said, almost all episodes are reviewed by multiple media outlets, and Wikipedia has examples of what individual episodes of Drag Race can look like once fleshed out: "Queens Behind Bars", "Trump: The Rusical", "Moulin Ru: The Rusical", etc. As for this nomination, it can be difficult to demonstrate notability for nine topics at once. So, I'll focus on "Choices 2020":

Sources for "Choices 2020" (some of which have been added to the entry)

I could keep going... Seems clear to me there's plenty to say and no doubt of notability. I should also note, WikiProject Drag Race is quite active and I believe more time should be given for editors to collaborate on these entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course, episode recaps for television shows exist. And yet, their coverage is WP:ROTM. It makes for a good distinction of how encyclopedias are WP:NOTNEWS. Per NOPAGE, there's plenty to say about the season of television, but less about each episode. I imagine some episodes, like the fleshed out examples provided, are the exceptions to the rule where there is enough that's worth documenting, like how some television shows have articles for some of their episodes but not others (Stranger Things (season 4) is the first example to come to my mind.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely nothing notable about these television episodes. Pre-existing episode summaries in the relevant season is more than enough. Thismess (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Incubate~~ Other editors are correct in that much of the coverage of the episodes are WP:ROTM and in their current state fail WP:NOPAGE, especially on if they add context to the season episode lists. However the fleshed out examples above do add more, with that in mind they could be incubated instead of deleted to allow them to be fleshed out. Shaws username (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) User:Another Believer's proposal for it is reasonable to me, I'd be perfectly happy with redirecting them instead until they can be fully written out. I stand by what I said about about them in their current state failing WP:NOPAGE, right now they vast majority of them don't add anything beyond what's already at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12), but if/when they're expanded properly stand-alone articles would be reasonable. Shaws username . talk . 20:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why do these exist? What is the use of articles whose only content is an infobox listing next to nothing and one sentence that says ""x" is an episode of Ruaul's Drag Race" with one or two sources that merely prove the topic exists after? @CAPTAIN RAJU: I think this discussion should be expanded to include all the articles that have been recently created for Drag Race episodes, like Disco-mentary and Girl Groups (RuPaul's Drag Race) and however many other articles are listed at List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Ss112 07:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by page creator: Can we just restore these pages as redirects for now? The redirects serve a purpose, so outright deletion is not necessary. There seems to be a dislike for these stubs, even though I am quite certain at least some are notable and could be expanded ("Choices 2020", for example). I'd roll up my sleeves to expand them now but I am currently traveling. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course...that's what I did before you reverted me with no changes... Don't make one-sentence junk that doesn't inform readers. Collaborate in draft space if you need to. But even what you added to that article is duplicative to or can easily be added to the main article, and individual episode articles are generally not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think the pages should be redirected, I'm just proposing this for now because I don't have time to expand the entries immediately. I'll work on them at a later date, hence my request for restoring redirects instead of outright deletion. Not interested in expanding or defending nine entries while traveling. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to expand the entries immediately Then don't create them like this! Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't traveling when I created them. I understand you dislike stubs, but stubs for notable topics aren't problematic. I don't need you attempting to merge and delete every stub I create. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Another Believer's request. These stubs were created in good faith and he should have the chance to expand them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this one, for now, with the possibility of re-creating later, or keeping some that are particularly well-sourced. I would not get angry at a procedural keep. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would appreciate a procedural keep. At least some of these are very clearly notable, but discussing and defending nine entries at once is obnoxious. I would ask nominator to express notability concerns on specific talk pages in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expressed concerns about one-sentence "articles" how many times??? "Potentially notable topic" != "Must have a standalone article, no matter how uninformative or duplicative it is". How about a procedural ban on creating pages that state only existence? What's obnoxious is that these tell readers nothing. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stubs for notable topics are allowed. I've asked you before (as have others), please leave me alone and stop targeting me and my work. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just because they may be "allowed" doesn't mean we have to have them like this! That's the whole point of WP:NOPAGE! I (and others) don't think that individual episodes are notable, or, even if (routine) sources are available, that they still don't need standalone, duplicative articles with no actual content. And since you're requesting expression of notability concerns, I hereby express concerns about the rest of the one-liners in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, LEAVE ME ALONE. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as while Redirection has been proposed as an alternative to Deletion. Would the target article be the Season 12 article? I don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep unless there is opposition to a bundled nomination but that's not what I'm seeing here and I don't think the number of articles included in this nomination is excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz While I don't think redirecting is necessary, the Season 12 entry would be the target until I or others expand these stubs further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season 12 would be my preference. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's simply nothing there. 203.211.77.98 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I would like add these articles for deletion along with others since these all consist of just one or two lines.

PrinceofPunjab^TALK 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't fair to just add on a bunch of entries which have not been included in the nomination. Also, the targets would be different and some of these episodes have been nominated for Emmys. These are more valid stubs needing expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that some of them have been nominated for Emmys. However, it's important to note that they are nominated in categories that are relatively minor and people who won/nominated for the award are not even mentioned on the article itself. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just suggesting a more targeted approach be taken here. There's an assumption that none of these stubs are valid and they've been given very little time to exist in the main space. I don't think the rush to delete all of these pages (which at minimum serve a purpose as redirects) is necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point. Rushing to delete all these pages, especially when some may serve as useful redirects, might not be necessary. A more targeted approach might be focusing on creating articles for premieres, Rusicals episodes, and those with Emmy nominations. This way, we can ensure that our efforts are directed towards content that holds significant relevance and value within the context of the show. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too late in the process to add a new WP:BUNDLE ("debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate"), putting them in their own AfD (broken up by season) would make more sense for considering them. Shaws username . talk . 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not bundling the entries at the start; this is only my second time engaging in this process, and I'm still learning the ropes. I will create a separate a Afd for them, broken up by season. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 16:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, sorry if I sounded a bit brusque, everyone's got to start somewhere and it's great that you're getting involved! Shaws username . talk . 17:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think starting another AFD is necessary yet if they can be redirected like those in this one. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 22 February 2024 (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.