Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Quartz


 * 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. The consensus is to Delete, not to Draftify. If the article creator wants this content restored and moved to Draft space or User space, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Quartz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP1E of a person with no indication of sustained notability that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The subject is a drag entertainer, who was briefly in their local news a couple of weeks ago for having a show cancelled due to online threats -- but apart from one glancing namecheck of Crystal Quartz's existence in a Toronto Star article about viral videos that isn't otherwise about Crystal Quartz in any non-trivial sense, the referencing here is otherwise entirely local to the Guelph/Kitchener-Waterloo region. (That goes even for the event cancellation itself, because even the CBC hit is not from the national news division of the CBC, but from its local news bureau in Kitchener-Waterloo, and thus does not represent "nationalizing" coverage.) One cancelled show just isn't grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of itself, and purely local referencing isn't sufficient to claim that they would pass WP:GNG instead of having to accomplish something more significant than just having one show cancelled. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Sexuality and gender,  and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess it got some attention, from the local CTV affiliate and this, provincial educational broadcaster, much like a PBS; there is some coverage, but I think it might either be TOOSOON or BLP1E. Unsure about this one. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since your comment, I found more recent and ongoing coverage and added that in, I mention in case it helps your assessment. CT55555 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (as article creator) Subject has got news coverage for two things in 2021 and again in 2022 so not one event, the essay WP:NOTBLP1E explains clearly why BLP1E does not apply. The comment that the news is only local is not important, no policy depreciates local news. Subject clearly passes WP:BASIC CT55555 (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is not about indiscriminately counting all the things the person has ever done, it's about counting how many of the things the person has done constitute potential reasons why an encyclopedia article might be warranted. Since the 2021 coverage is exclusively local coverage in local-interest contexts that don't pass any notability criteria, none of it is "notable events" for the purposes of escaping BLP1E. It's BLP1-=notable-E, not BLP1-any-E. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think any policy or guidance supports your suggestion that local coverage is worth less, but please tell me if I'm wrong. CT55555 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Local coverage isn't entirely inadmissible in Wikipedia, no, but it isn't necessarily enough all by itself to hand a person a "fails all SNGs but is notable anyway because media coverage exists" pass. GNG isn't just "count all the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number", but rather it does consider factors like the geographic range of the coverage and the context of what the person is getting coverage for: for example, county councillors and local fire and police chiefs don't all get a free pass over GNG just because they have some local coverage; restaurateurs don't all get into Wikipedia just because they've been in their local media two or three times; local musicians who haven't accomplished anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC don't automatically get into Wikipedia just because Sarah Liss reviewed their debut concert at Lee's Palace for Now; a child actor who gets their first small part in a film doesn't automatically pass NACTOR just because their local paper profiles them; and my mother's former neighbour didn't get a Wikipedia article just because she got some local coverage in the context of waking up one morning to find a pig in her front yard. But conversely, if a person actually has an "inherent" notability claim (Member of Parliament, winner of national literary or music or film award that passes WRITER or NFILM or NMUSIC, etc.), then we don't worry about the balance between national and local coverage at all since the context of what they're being covered for unequivocally clears the bar. Basically, the less "inherent" the basic notability claim is, the more you have to show evidence that they're actually getting more than just "local person does stuff" coverage in their hometown media. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable, or at least change the name as "Crystal Quartz" here as nothing to do with Crystals or Quartz and is confusing. "Crystal Quartz" might also be needed for article that is about Quartz. --Bduke (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a disambiguation link to Quartz to resolve your concern. CT55555 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it does.--Bduke (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The news coverage is ongoing, as recently as the 19 December. As are protests, which are also making the news and attracting counter-protests. A politician cited threats towards the article subject in a call for parliament to take more action. The "10 year test" is an essay, although if this does indeed persuade government to change policy, this will be notable in 10 years. All that said, once something is notable, that is not a temporary thing, so the essay on 10 years, in my opinion is at odds with the guideline: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Anyay,WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are the policy, which calls for multiple, independent sources with significant coverage and so I hope people !vote based on policy and guidance and consider the ongoing and updated coverage the subject is getting that I added just in the past few minutes. CT55555  (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is not extended based on what might become true in the future; it is extended based solely on what's already true today. The question is, if the person never accomplishes another thing so long as they live, such that what's already true today is the absolute peak of their potential notability, then is what's already true today already enough that we can already presume that the ten year test will be passed just by what's already true today. If that can't already be answered in the affirmative just by what's already true today, then we don't keep the article just because it's possible to theorize that something more notable might happen in the future — it's always possible to theorize that everything might become more notable in the future than it already is now, so we would never be able to delete anything at all if just speculating about possible future notability increases were enough to forestall deletion. Rather, we delete the article and then permit future recreation if and when something more notable has actually happened. If legislation to better protect drag performers actually gets passed, then that might be something — but just having their name cited in a legislative speech asking for the drafting of legislation that hasn't actually been drafted or presented or passed isn't a magic permanent notability maker. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with the new sources added. Ideally, I'd like to see the gov't actually do something to protect such performances, that would also help bolster the case for GNG here if legislation gets changed, for example. It's just enough for GNG now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. What triggered the writing of this recent Wikipedia article? Looking at the article start date it's likely to be the media coverage of the drag show protest. If the protest is a notable event perhaps there should be an article about that. Or, details of the protest could be added into an article about discrimination/protests about drag artists in Ontario or Canada, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Establishing a biographical article for this subject is much WP:TOOSOON.
 * The Toronto Star source is a mere mention of the subject as part of an article on a separate subject and therefore does not amount to significant coverage, see WP:PSEUDO. Rupples (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was indeed the protests that caught my attention and prompted me to start this article. The second thing I did was check if the subject made news in previous years, to avoid the BLP1E situation, of course a different interpretation of BLP1E above has taken this conversation down that route anyway. While I argue to keep, I appear to be in a minority so far. In case it ends with that being consensus opinions, then I would support your point that this protests are notable:
 * https://xtramagazine.com/culture/ontario-drag-events-targeted-241510
 * https://www.tvo.org/article/i-dont-feel-safe-ontario-drag-performers-reckon-with-heightened-risk
 * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/crystal-quartz-drag-show-brunch-1.6674187
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/9339516/penticton-drag-show-protest/
 * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/drag-queen-storytime-sarnia-1.6683295
 * CT55555 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555 Appreciate the tone of your reply. 'Fraid, it doesn't alter my delete !vote, but the links you provided and further searches have made me aware of protests targeting other drag artists e.g. in library storytelling sessions, and are more widespread than I initially thought. Rupples (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Deleting because this is almost the WP:RECENT incarnate. Now if this person happens to cause a major news stir yes but for now no. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sustainable coverage to indicate notability. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Super weak keep, the sources seem okay at best. If most move to delete, I'd say that makes sense. Barely notable. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Taking the substantial editing on the article since the nom and the news-related external links (prior to their rightful removal) into account, a TikTok performance video and receiving online threats do not demonstrate notability. 5 of the sources are non-independent of the subject and partly primary, being statements by Quartz to the publication mixed with prose, which do not presume notability. The citation on the TikTok video barely mentions Quartz, and is almost entirely focused on McEntire. Citation 9 barely namedrops Quartz once. Citation 8 is trivial mention. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/request It seems consensus is heading towards delete. As per the suggestion above, I am confident there is a validity to Draft:2022 Ontario drag performance protests but of course, I'll delete it if I am wrong about that. I would ask that we consider draftifying the article on the promise that I'll make it a redirect to 2022 Ontario drag performance protests on the proviso that notability of the former event artilcle is established. I'll create 2022 Ontario drag performance protests in the next few days or weeks. P.S. Coverage of CQ in the past hour https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/2022/12/29/how-the-freedom-movement-is-targeting-the-queer-community-with-false-claims-of-grooming-children.html CT55555  (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.