Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry (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 redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8). No prejudice against reopening this discussion when new sources providing substantial, independent coverage of Barry are provided. I JethroBT drop me a line 23:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Derrick Barry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on reality shows. That's not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- the winner usually (but by no means always) gets an article on that basis, but non-winning competitors still have to establish notability in other ways. And the sourcing here, which consists of one Q&A-style interview in a blog about his experience on one of the reality shows and one news article about denying a rumour, is not solid enough to pass WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better, but this is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Changed vote, see below.) Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It would be unusual to delete an article that meets those standards so readily, so you'd need a special argument. So if you discard the Daily Mail (which, fine), you still have a whole entire article about her in Huffington Post. Then there's a whole article about her in the Advocate, here. A whole article in the LA Weekly, here (they call here a "superstar" BTW). Las Vegas Weekly. Chron (whatever that is, but looks professional). Oh, the Las Vegas Sun. All of these are full-length in-depth articles/interviews in professionally slick and fairly widely read magazines/websites. Easily, easily, cruises right past WP:GNG and knocks it for six. Must keep. Herostratus (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles in which the subject is talking about themselves in Q&A inteview format don't assist passage of GNG, but may be used only for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met — and that knocks out four of those five sources. The only one that isn't wiped out by that fact is LA Weekly — but that's an alt-weekly, which is still a class of sourcing that for different reasons (not widely distributed, nor archived anywhere that we could easily retrieve the content if the article ever deadlinked for some reason) is still in the "acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts but not able to be a bringer of GNG" camp. Bearcat (talk)
 * "Articles in which the subject is talking about themselves in Q&A inteview format don't assist passage of GNG"... I don't believe it. Show me where it says that. That would be a very silly rule. Of course an in-depth interview counts as an in-depth article. When I'm looking for sourcing, an in-depth interview article is the gold standard, for goodness' sake. There's no reason why it wouldn't be. Don't just make up random rules. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not making anything up. It's standard AFD practice that Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been passed by objective third-party sourcing, but cannot be bringers of GNG — because what a person says about themselves in an interview can be, and quite frequently is, hype-inflated or self-serving or promotional rather than neutral in nature (frex, a writer isn't going to be challenged if he calls his book a best-seller when it really wasn't; an actress isn't going to get fact-checked on claiming that she's 10 years younger than she really is; Derrick Barry isn't going to be confronted by the interviewer if he makes unverifiable claims about what was really going on backstage between himself and Kim Chi; etc.) So when it comes to the notability test, interviews in which a person is talking about themselves work like a person's own self-published website or social media presence, not like news articles: they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that's already satisfied our inclusion rules independently of them, but cannot be used as establishers of notability in an article that doesn't contain any stronger sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Sure, she's mentioned in interviews and has a Vegas show, but she hasn't released any music, or done anything noteworthy in her time post-RuPaul's Drag Race, which is arguably where she's most known from. For a comparison, Busty Heart placed lower than Derrick Barry on their season of America's Got Talent, but is notable for other reasons. Same for Fancy Ray and Seed & Feed Marching Abominable. Each of those pages show more notability than Derrick Barry. Therefore, redirect back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) until she actually does something warranting an actual page. Oath2order (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But you don't have to "do anything" to meet WP:GNG. You just have to be written about. That's what the WP:GNG says. If you don't like it take it up there. Meantime we are supposed to follow the WP:GNG. It doesn't matter how many people vote Delete here. The person closing has to take policy into account. Made-up arguments such as "Meets GNG, but I discount interviews" or "Meets GNG, but hasn't really done anything useful"... those don't cut it. Herostratus (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the context in which that coverage is being given does enter the GNG equation. Local fire chiefs in small towns would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; winners of local poetry contests would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; president of church bake sale committees would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took; unelected candidates for political office would qualify for Wikipedia articles if "coverage exists" were all it took. Even I've been in the media often enough that I would qualify for a Wikipedia article if "coverage exists" were all it took — that coverage just didn't have anything to do with me accomplishing anything I'd belong in an encyclopedia for, which is where the difference comes in. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Meets the GNG. Sure, a lot of niche magazines & interviews, but still RS.   Th e S te ve   09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Delete. My coleagues' arguments have merit. In addition, I had to remove a BLP violation from the article, and... whatever WP:GNG might say, this is borderline, and really... this article doesn't enhance the Wikipedia. Delete per WP:IAR, if it comes to that. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (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.