Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen)

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 delete. Based on the quality of the votes. Numerically it may appear that a consensus is to 'keep' but these appear to mostly 'I LIKE IT' votes or votes without any rationale based on policy or guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatianna (drag queen)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning competitor in a reality show. This is not a claim of notability that constitutes an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass in and of itself, but the sourcing here is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in its place -- the references here are (1) a "meet the whole cast of the new season" article which isn't substantively about him, (2) a nightclub's own self-published website as proof that he performed there, (3) a "local boy makes good" article in his own hometown newspaper, and (4) a blogsourced opinion piece about why he should win the season (even though he's already been cut). This is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the person being a well-known reality television personality. Wikipedia has articles on many people from reality shows like The Voice, America's Got Talent, American Idol. Tatianna was a Top 4 finisher and is now on All-Stars. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules, when it comes to reality shows, is that the winner is the only one who gets over the notability bar just for appearing on the show in and of itself — non-winning competitors can sometimes still accrue notability in the same ways as people who weren't on the show at all can (e.g. a singer who lost on American Idol can still get signed to a label afterward and have hit singles, and is not precluded from satisfying WP:NMUSIC for those followup achievements just because they didn't win Idol), but they don't get automatic inclusion freebies just for the fact of being on a reality show in and of itself. Winner gets article because show; anybody who didn't win gets article if they satisfy some other inclusion criteria after getting cut from the show, and not because show. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came onto Wikipedia today specifically to find out more about Tatianna so was glad to see there was an article, since most of the other competitors have them. She released a single after being eliminated from Rupaul's All Stars, so has done other things apart from the show, and there are references to articles in the entry as it stands(egTatianna on All Stars, 'Same Parts,' & Reading the Judges). Also, as I understand it all the eliminated competitors are likely to return later in the season due to the way it is being set up. I first tried looking Tatianna up a few weeks ago and could find next to no info so this article was welcome and helpful. Socratic12 talk 20.12, 12 September 2016 GMT —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (1) We usually only keep articles of the winners, or at most runner-ups, on reality shows. (2) I am friends with many drag queens (including three Empresses of the Imperial Court New York), and honey, she is not a notable drag queen. I'm not aware of any title in the Imperial Court system or other major drag show (e.g., Miss Fire Island) that she's won. Just to be fair, I searched online for possible sources, but mostly I found only passing references to Tatianna. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is notable, and has been written about and interviewed in several publications, and it is not true only winners get their own pages - Pearl, Yara Sofia, Shangela, Laganja and countless other contestants have their own wikipedia entries.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even Mimi Imfurst has a page on wikipedia being the first queen eliminated from the first AllStars season. Same with Tammie Brown. I don't see the reason why Tatianna can't have a wikipedia page when she's been in the latest season of RPDR, she's probably coming back, and there's actually people interested on getting to know her better. She wasn't a notable drag queen in the past cause drag race clearly didn't had as many fans as it has now and unlike Raven (Aka the only queen from S2 people actually remember), she didn't stick with WOW presents. It's a different situation now.

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show (Alaska didn't win, for example, but attained notability afterward by continuing to attract attention for her musical career.) But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason why they qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is well known and was on two seasons of a popular show, from a few years ago and in the present. She is verified on Twitter and the number of followers she has proves that a lot of people show interest in her. Other drag queens that only participated one episode of RPDR like Mimi Imfurst has a Wikipedia page. Most participant's in all stars 2 also have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.87.53 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. And having a verified account on Twitter is not a notability criterion either, nor is the number of followers a person does or doesn't have on any social media platform. Reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion is the be-all and end-all of whether a person qualifies for a standalone article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She is heavily featured in promos for RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 2. She has made many television and online-based appearances promoting said show including the recent MTV VMA's.She has a currently charting single on iTunes and as said above is Twitter verified. If other performers with less credentials have a page then so should she. Her credentials as you said will only grow from here since All-Stars 2 is only 3 episodes in so deleting this page seems premature at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.214.116 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the conversation continues, I would urge participants to review WP:ATA and WP:RS. What somebody is doing on Twitter has absolutely no bearing on what we do, for example. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Less coverage than Derrick Barry and we got rid of her. Oath2order (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, there is a possibility of brigading as fans have discovered this and are not too happy about the possibility of deletion. Just want to put that out there. Oath2order (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What is the value of deletion when clearly there are a lot of people who are passionate about keeping this page? This has yet to be articulated. Is it a bandwidth issue? Without clearly articulated value regarding deletion, the article should be kept. Does Wikipedia intend to be a source for a more expansive information set/knowledge base than traditional information sources or not? The burden for deletion should be significant for any article so as not to infringe on that exchange of information and to deter elitist curation based on a small group of "judges" who may be influenced by narrow world views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.36.7.156 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passion about a subject does not mean that it's something that should be kept. The fact is, Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered relevant and notable; unfortunately, Tatianna is neither until she does more. Oath2order (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are kept or deleted based on the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about the topic in media. A person has to be the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG — if they're not, then the article quite simply has to wait until the volume and quality of coverage increases. Our inclusion criteria do not allow people to be exempted from having to be properly sourced. It's not our job to include an article about every person who can be verified as simply existing; there are other places (like the Drag Race Wiki) where people can turn for information about her, so it's not our responsibility to suspend our inclusion requirements. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (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.