Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Game (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. There is no consensus in favour of a G4 speedy deletion (which appears to be invalid in this context, anyhow) and the deletion camp has not raised concerns about notability. I see the concerns about votestacking but it doesn't appear like it has swayed the deletion discussion. If there are concerns about the quality of the article content (and I am not seeing a consensus on that, either) they can be handled through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch Game[edit]

[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)

This was already deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Game, as this article about a recurring segment of a TV series is WP:FANCRUFT and the minutiae described here is not notable outside of the context of the show and is not a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. These issues were not and cannot be addressed, and the article should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4. This was successfully instigated yesterday, but due to WP:CANVASSING and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk page, this was restored in a bizarre turn of events. Article needs to be deleted per the outcome of the previous AFD, which still stands. --wooden superman 09:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Speedy - None of the criteria for speedy deletion are present here. The previous delete discussion did not concern substantially the same page (compare 1 2 ). Previous AFD no longer stands as it concerned a different page. I am neutral as to whether this deserves a stand-alone article, though I note (even keeping in mind WP:WAX) that it is not totally unknown for a segment of a TV show to warrant coverage in an article separate to that of the main article covering the show as a whole (thinking particularly of Top Gear (2002 TV series) and [[1]]). Local Consensus is still consensus, AFD is just another talk forum and may actually have less accurate analysis applied by editors. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is essentially no difference between the content of the two versions. Therefore, they are substantially identical, and the reason for the previous deletion does still apply, so the criteria for WP:CSD#G4 are still present. Even if they weren't, it's just a list of who played who in the segment, nothing more than WP:FANCRUFT which might belong at https://rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com/wiki/RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_Wiki, but there's no place for it here. --wooden superman 10:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the basics: size then - 20,391 bytes, size now - 41,935 bytes. Sources then - 10, sources now - 23. Content then - short lede followed by tables, content now - extensive lede followed by tables and then a section on its reception. There's just no way that the substance of the articles can be described as the same, particularly given the number of edits by different editors which indicates that the process of page-creation was not a cut/paste of the old page. Hence they are not "substantially the same" as required by WP:CSD#G4. Like I said, I'm neutral about whether this should exist as a stand alone article because I haven't had a chance to check the referencing, but the Speedy criteria you've raised here just don't apply to this case. FOARP (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's been padded out a bit, so what? Its substance is still the same WP:FANCRUFT. Anything important can be mentioned in a small section on the main series article. --wooden superman 10:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"So what?" - so it's not substantially the same, and therefore doesn't meet speedy criteria. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's just padding, the substance is still the same. Just because some "facts" have been referenced doesn't imply independent notability. --wooden superman 11:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you're wrong. Content which adds an explanation of the topic's context, which was absent from the first version but is present here, is a significant change in substance. Significant improvement in the sourcing, with over three times as many footnotes and more like four or five times as many footnotes to reliable rather than junk sources, is a significant change in substance. Had I been the administrator who came across the article in the speedy deletion queue, I would have looked at the original deleted version to compare it to the current version, and immediately declined the speedy as the article was not substantively identical at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the opinion of the admin who did deal with it, per this comment. --wooden superman 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, they were wrong too: there's significant context in this version that was absent from the first, and there's five times as much reliable sourcing in this version as there was in the first. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bearcat here. Article was clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, but I don't expect us to convince Woodensuperman otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This should have gone through DRV rather than being restored/recreated. It's still just an excessively detailed, undersourced wad of fancruft. As to whether G4 applies, that is one speedy criterion that needs to be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. That is because of the cynical habit of certain article creators to remake their cruft with a handful of cosmetic changes but without doing anything to address the original reason for deleting. And then expecting it to be immune against G4. I'd be OK with a G4 if it was just the addition of a couple of unsourced entries, or fidgeting with templates, but that would be a huge stretch in this case. Reyk _YO! 12:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TVSHOW this is a segment of a long-running, nationally-broadcast show with apparent stand-alone notability and therefore notable. Sourcing as to the notability of this section of the show includes multiple, reliable, independent sources ( 1 2 3 4 ). Please note that each of these sources is (as shown by the titles) about the Snatch Game section of the show specifically, and not about the show in general, and thus is WP:SIGCOV for Snatch Game. Particularly, each of these sources points out that this section of the show is a "fan favourite" or similar and thus has notability of its own.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for the proposals to merge with RuPaul's Drag Race in the previous AFD, at 83,187 bytes RuPaul's Drag Race is already clearly WP:TOOLONG and therefore it makes sense to have a WP:SPINOFF page. I think without that I might have voted to merge/delete instead. As to the excessive detail and WP:CRUFT in the article - I think this is a fair point, but without that you'd still have a spin-off article and the parent article would still be too long to accommodate its content. I also agree that brigading and WP:CANVASS shouldn't be used to influence decision-making. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are only really about two good paragraphs here worth saving, which wouldn't really amount to much of an article. If you're concerned about the main RuPaul's Drag Race being WP:TOOLONG, then I think the whole of the WP:CRUFTy "Music" section could easily be sacrificed! Or maybe the "Seasons" section could be trimmed/split to the episodes or individual seasons pages? Whichever, we really shouldn't be entertaining this as a standalone article. --wooden superman 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per GNG and Talk:Snatch_Game#Contested_deletion. There's plenty of secondary coverage about the subject, which is a recurring challenge spanning multiple series and has notable people impersonating other notable people. Multiple editors have already expressed a desire to keep and improve the existing entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Snatch_Game#Contested_deletion is exactly the WP:CANVASSING and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS I mention in the nom. --wooden superman 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way for a discussion to resolve at all if it's just between two people and doesn't get any outside input — and publicizing the discussion somehow is the only way any outside input can ever actually happen. Pinging people who might have something to contribute is not automatically canvassing — "come vote the way I direct you to" would be canvassing, "come offer your opinions, but I'm not directing you how to vote" is not. I, for example, have been perfectly happy to vote "merge/redirect" on Drag Race-related articles if the sources just weren't cutting it, such as contestant BLPs that were sourced to blogs and "meet all the queens" listicles rather than sources that were about the contestant per se — so pinging me is definitely not "stacking the vote", because I'm not a predictably reliable keep vote for all DR-related content and Another Believer knows that. He and I don't even always agree on everything, but we at least respect each other's opinions and input either way: he pinged me because he felt I would have something valuable to contribute to the discussion, not because he knew in advance whether I'd actually support or oppose the question. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A much more neutral place to direct this kind of notification would have been at WP:WikiProject Television don't you think, rather than at a group of superfans? --wooden superman 15:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually a "superfan". I'm actually quite rarely involved in editing Drag Race-related articles at all except in a primarily administrative "cut out the fucking vandalism" capacity. Yeah, I've watched the show, but strictly in a "I can take it or leave it" sort of way: it can be entertaining, but I'm not obsessed and my life doesn't revolve around it. It's not normally very high on my list of editing priorities on here at all — my primary editing projects on here usually pertain to Canadian film, television, literature and politics, not reality shows of any stripe, and I had never actually edited a Drag Race-related article in my life until I had to step in as an administrator within the past month because of all the recent "this chart should reflect what I wanted the judges to say instead of what they really said" vandalism that's been hitting the season placement charts. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for lumping you in with the others, but everyone else that was pinged is a member of the WikiProject, which didn't seem very neutral. I'll sit back for a while now, I'm getting too invested in this, but I still think this is little more than WP:FANCRUFT, especially the charts. --wooden superman 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good faith to preemptively assume that people who are more active members of the Drag Race Wikiproject are automatically suspect either: as has already been pointed out to you, even active wikiproject members have been perfectly happy to support merger or deletion of a Drag Race-related article if the sourcing simply wasn't cutting it. The project's actually doing a very creditable job at trying to improve the quality of the articles under their purview — far, far more than some wikiprojects I could name (*side-eyes WP:PORN and whistles*) — and is very much not resting on cruft or bad sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Thanks, glad you've noticed our work lately. I agree, please do not assume project members are fancruft types or automatic keep votes. That's untrue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Which I have now done here) --wooden superman 15:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I'm a little concerned by this edit. I know it's not exactly WP:CANVASSING, but notifying a small group of fans of the show could certainly lead to WP:VOTESTACKING and skew the discussion. --wooden superman 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I explained on the talk page, an AFD deletion does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever being notable enough for a Wikipedia article — we have lots of topics that were deleted at one time, but were then allowed to be recreated later on because the basis for notability had changed: the topic had accomplished something new that constituted a stronger notability claim than it had at the time of the first version, better sourcing could be shown to bolster passage of WP:GNG, and on and so forth. So the fact that an article has been deleted in the past does not mean that any followup attempt to recreate it is always an automatic speedy — if an editor can do a better job than the first time, making a stronger notability claim and citing better sources, then they most certainly are allowed to try again. Certainly we still speedy if they haven't actually done better, but if they have done better we evaluate the new version on its own merits rather than speedying.
The original version literally just stated that this exists, and then went straight to the results tables without actually doing anything to contextualize its existence at all, and cited just eight footnotes of which only four were actually reliable sources at all — while this version does a lot more to contextualize the topic's significance within Drag Race, and cites 23 footnotes of which only one is even questionable as to whether it's a reliable source or not. Which means there's a lot more content here, and five times as much reliable, notability-supporting media coverage, which means this is not "substantively the same as the deleted content" at all.
Again, speedy does not automatically apply to every attempt to recreate a topic that's been deleted before, because sometimes the basis for notability and/or the quality of the sourcing have changed in the interim. This article is substantially better than the old version, and cites more than enough genuinely reliable sources to clear WP:GNG whether you personally care about the topic or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above, it seems there is a group of people hellbent on removing everything related to a certain subgenre of entertainment. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a participant in WP:RuPaul's Drag Race, I can't help but read above that there is an assumption by some that I am an automatic "keep" vote on AfD discussions for pages related to RuPaul's Drag Race or that I can depended upon to reply "Yeah, me too!" when pinged by another member of that WP. Neither of those is true, and I would like to think I am more impartial than that. However, in this case, I do agree that the page should be kept. The reasons for a speedy deletion simply do not hold up in my view as the current page is not a simple recreation of the deleted page, as described by Bearcat above. I might agree that there were elements of fancruft on the page (and, to be fair, some of it was added by me), but I believe this edit and this edit by Nikki311 did a good job of removing a lot of that as unsourced trivia, and rightly so. What remains now is solidly sourced and relevant Wiki page, and I don't agree that the topic is not notable outside the realm of RuPaul's Drag Race. I strongly believe this page should be kept. Yompi20 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Bearcat. The present version of this page more than passes muster for being "substantially different" from the previously deleted version, most notably due to the significant increase in breadth and quality of sources, additional context, and substantive expansion of the prose. It does not even come close to meeting WP:G4 or other speedy deletion criteria. The present article is sourced with reputable, well known WP:RS, including TV Guide, Mic, Vulture, The Atlantic, The Guardian, HuffPost and Gay Times. If there is still doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG, why not just expand the article with academic literature about Snatch Game? A superficial Google Scholar search turns up numerous mentions of the subject in peer-reviewed journals, including this article, which focuses specifically on Snatch Game—not even on Drag Race in general. Other such articles (e.g. this one) reference and contextualize the segment. I don't have time to do content work right now, but I'm happy to provide access to sources behind a paywall for anyone who would like to expand this article. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race. While the article is better referenced than before this is still just a segment on a game show and should be covered in the article about that game show. Giving it its own article seems to be overcoverage bordering on fancruft. The merged coverage should focus on describing the format, not on all the individual contestants in detail. Saying who won as part of the text would be OK but the tables should not be merged. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:TOOLONG problem? FOARP (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis of dedicated improvements. As I suggested during the previous AfD, if recurring segments from Saturday Night Live or The Simpsons can pass the inclusion test, then Snatch Game seems equally worthy. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 23:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As another user stated, this is a reoccurring segment on RPDR with "notable people impersonating other notable people." It has been covered in depth by RS, including academic literature. It's not just an episode on a show; it spans many seasons of RPDR and multiple seasons of All Stars and Drag Race Thailand. With RuPaul's Drag Race UK starting in 2019, it will presumably be a part of the competition there as well, bringing the show total to four. --Kbabej (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per users above. The article is clearly different from the previous version and has a greater number of sources and citations in addition to this (as stated above) the segment has appeared across the whole RPDR franchise. ECW03 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One may personally despise pop culture stuff like this, but sources show it is a notable topic sufficient to merit an article. I would consider a merge discussion in 50 years when I would expect the topic will be of reduced interest. Also, if that discussion occurs in 2069, please notify me, if I'm still alive I'd love to comment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:19, 7 May 2019 (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.