Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divas Lip Sync Live


 * 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. No consensus to delete, and a consensus that the subject is independently notable; concerns on how this article is integrated with the broader series can be handled outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Divas Lip Sync Live

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:GNG - the topic did not receive extensive coverage that warrants an independent article. The article is made up of information taken from the main series page at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3). ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. Notable people impersonating notable people in an episode which received sufficient coverage by independent reputable publications. The article should be expanded, not deleted, and actually this would make a nice little Good article with a bit of work. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG, concurring with Another Believer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. To expand on what Another Believer wrote, this episode is about notable people impersonating notable people on a notable show. There's also adequate sourcing. I agree with expanding, not deleting. --Kbabej (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes GNG. The article cites plenty of standalone coverage in publications like Billboard and The New York Times. Armadillopteryxtalk 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * question for, , , - What does this article add that couldn't be contained or isn't already covered at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3) or List of Drag Race Episodes? One of the things about independent articles is they should build upon parent articles, not duplicate content. Furthermore, if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist. If you look at the page view stats for the episode they're at an average of 21/day versus 2,978 for the parent season's page. This also suggests that the episode is not a viable search term and in terms of people actually finding the information, it would better served at the parent album's page. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 09:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That May be true for now, but it’s hard to say long term that the article won’t evolve, which, as I can attest, takes only a determined editor who does the research and the work. AfD is about the possibility that an article can become good or better, not if the material can be also found on other articles.I know this can become a good article because *every* episode is reviewed by multiple sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article isn't a stub (and as others have noted, it could easily be expanded), so I'm not sure how if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist applies. List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes doesn't include episode descriptions at all, and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3) includes much less episode-specific content than this article. Plenty of FA-class articles average fewer than 25 views a day (e.g. here and here and here), so that's not an indicator of the subject's value to the encyclopedia. I bet the page views would go up if we just linked to this article from the bodies of some other articles (e.g. contestants who participated)—right now, most of what links to it is just from the navbox. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's a poor reason. The topic is over two years old. If it was going to receive more coverage it would have done by now. While I agree that it has received some coverage from notable sources, the information contained is limited and as I've said its not really a viable search term. If people want to see this information (there's very little that isn't already at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3) or List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes), they're more likely to access it from the article about the season. From a user experience point of view, it makes no sense to make them click through to this article where 80-90% of the content is repeated from the main article. Its sounds a bit like people want it purely for GA purposes (broad coverage is part of GA criteria) - which isn't a dead certain anyway. If we think about it from an encyclopedia point of view and what's easier for fans, it would be containing the information on the main article page where it is more likely to be accessed and viewed (personal feelings aside). Also very few people know the actual names of the episodes. I'm sure Grey-necked wood rail Edgar Speyer had more views at the time they passed FA status and didn't have parent albums where the content could be contained so I think the viability of the search term does matter as does the page views when the content could be better contained elsewhere. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 09:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to assume this entry will remain a stub forever. Just takes some volunteer(s) to expand. Sorry, Lil-unique1, but I don't see reason to delete this page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Its more the fact that most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term. If as fans of the show and members of the project we want others to see more of the content then its plainly obviously that the content should exist at the main article for the season because very few people navigate to or search for the individual episode. The episode titles are not widely known about or displayed or referred to. I feel like everyone who's voted keep so far is a longstanding member of the project so the votes aren't necessarily as objective as they should be. WP:EPISODE outlines this. I would also like to say that as a fan of the show I want the content to reach as many readers as possible and it is my belief that more people would reach the article contents on the main article for the series. It's logical. I will wait for some more neutral editors to comment and of course I will accept the community consensus on this though I will say ardently, IMO that GNG has not been met (coverage is not broad). ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 14:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, that’s a reason to trim back what’s in the season articles and have a “Main article link” to the episode. But all the content will grow and improve with time.And we always direct readers to the best article to find information no matter the title. I’m not seeing any big concern. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple things:
 * most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term – there are lots of reasons page views could be low, some of which I mentioned above; not sure how you've decided the reason is so obviously the one you state. Or why you don't apply the same assumption to all articles with low page views, including obviously notable subjects like the many FAs that fall into that category.
 * I want the content to reach as many readers as possible – as I and Gleeanon409 have mentioned, the way to get the most content to readers would be to expand and link this article from the body of more prominent pages, such as the season page and contestant pages. Deleting and/or trimming gets less content to people, not more.
 * Armadillopteryxtalk 15:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Another Believer; while I'm not fond of these articles myself, I this artcle clearly demonstrates compliance with WP:BASIC.  ——  Serial  16:45, 19 July 2020 (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.