Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Beverly Hillz

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 Consensus to keep The community is of the opinion that notability has been established. HighInBC 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Beverly Hillz[edit]

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

Article about drag queen who's notability doesn't satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:GNG. On top of that article was created today, between 18:34 and 18:50, a dump of some 13224 bytes. Created somewhere else I think, by deleted user CasinoTYME. Don't think the girl is notable. Original article was a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article passes both BIO and GNG. The subject is well known, has been featured on television, won the WCT award, and has continued getting coverage since she appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race. The sources cover her in specific, rather than just mentioning her in passing, and there are a wide variety of them. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the coverage significant and aside from coverage of her on the reality show it's in small or regional sources, and the reality show part is sufficiently addressed by the show article. She has not received a well-known award or made enduring historical contributions to entertainment, and going beyond WP:GNG, I don't find any of the criteria of WP:ENT covered by this article or elsewhere. Hekerui (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find Huffington Post, The Advocate, The Windy City Times, and many others small sources? Besides that, she is notable for being the first ever contestant to come out as trans* during the show (as opposed to Carmen Carrera, who came out after), has been given an award by the WCT, and has received continued coverage each year since being on the show. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffpo and Advocate articles are about the show, and Windy City Times is regional. Hekerui (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of which invalidates whether the source backs up the article or not. Regional sources are not invalid sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui, now that there are sources added that she is the first person who has come out as transgender on network television, would you reconsider your 'delete' vote, in that there is considerable historical significance there? --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are some major issues with this deletion nomination. First of all, my account is not a deleted account, nor has it ever been. Second, it is totally fine to write an article for a redirect if someone gains notability. That's a very common WP practice. Third, you say "dump", I say "well written article". Not really sure what scope_creep's motivation is here. --CasinoTYME (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CasinoTYME (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CasinoTYME (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and article is easy to read with plenty of good sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monica Beverly Hillz is a professional transgender entertainer who has appeared on national television and received coverage in major news outlets. She is the subject of academic research. I believe the description of her as a "drag queen" and "the girl" in comments above is inappropriate.--Lawrlafo (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fairly unpopular in comparison to many other drag queens that have appeared on Rupaul's Drag Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8001:3F89:495:24DD:2276:5691 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — 2601:206:8001:3F89:495:24DD:2276:5691 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Luckily we don't rate subjects of articles on "popularity". We rate them on coverage, the depth of sources, and other valid criteria. The fact is the subject has a wide range of sources solely covering her (as opposed to only mentioning her) since she appeared on the show. She has been the subject of academic research, popular media, and has been covered by legitimate sources. It doesn't matter if you think she's "unpopular." --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:POPULARITY or lack thereof are not valid arguments for neither Keep nor Delete. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CasinoTYME Your user page was created on the 20:15, 26 September 2015 and your talk page was created on the 20:12, 26 September 2015 which is after the time I created the AFD, which suggested your account was either blocked or deleted somehow. Either way, there is something really dodgy going on here. What we really need is an admin to determine what is going om.scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...I just started and this is a new account. How is that in any way "dodgy"? Why wouldn't you have checked my user name before saying it was a deleted/blocked account? Have you not heard of a new user writing an article on a topic that used to have a redirect? Are you new to WP? --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might not be dodgy, but it does seem odd, that you create an account, and 2 hours later there is a beautiful polished non notable article created. scope_creep (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015

The point of accounts is to create articles, scope_creep. That's why I have an account. Why would you have an account if not to add to WP? Your argument doesn't even make sense. It's odd that someone creates an account to add to WP? Why would anyone have a WP account if not to add to the project? How about sticking to the article at hand instead of making unfounded claims against editors, especially when your claims are completely bogus (ie: that my account was ever blocked/deleted)? --CasinoTYME (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The comments towards CasinoTYME are pretty much ad hominem. It doesn't have anything to do with the article which several individuals in this discussion have found passes GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Megalibrarygirl, the comments made by nom re CasinoTYME has little or nothing to do here, and I don't share the concern. Believe me, we get plenty of nice looking drafts at AFC. If there are genuine concerns, file a case at AN/I. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Transwoman I find that this individual has made the Trans Community more mainstream, and to delete this page would constitute transphobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.234.136.223 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's definitely notable and the article reflects that. Fuzchia (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes BIO and GNG. Azealia911 _talk 10:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We're up to almost 4 dozen sources, and I've now found out that she was the first person to reveal they are transgender on network television (I added a source to the article for that), as well as being the first on RuPaul's Drag Race. Along with both those historic facts, she has won the WCT award, kept in the public eye since the show, has been a part of academic research, and has lots of varied media sources covering her. I don't see how this can be anything but keep at this point. --CasinoTYME (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (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.