Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flotilla DeBarge


 * 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. Many arguments in favour of keeping this article are remarkably unconvincing. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Flotilla DeBarge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable entertainer biography, this time their 'one event' claim-to-fame was in posing for a PETA anti-fur advert. This is hardly sufficient to warrant notability in itself. Almost all of the references are from blogs and .. well, Gawker, or are 404'd, and seem to be only there to document a single incident of petty crime :/ Note also that I've just edited it to remove a few dead reference - A l is o n  ❤ 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This AfD is also debated by editors in an external forum


 * Delete - as above - A l is o n  ❤ 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that the range of references is enough to establish notability. The references also suggest that the subject may not have been primarily at fault in the incident which led to the criminal charges. - Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is preferable to fix broken links than remove them. Besides, references need not be available online to be valid. I replaced one 404 link with its Archive.org version. Further coverage of Flotilla DeBarge from Gay City News can be found at this Google News archive search. Note the article about the threat of a lawsuit which appeared in the New York Post, a downmarket daily newspaper. Even though the article is posted on a blog site, it appeared in a reliable source. And Show Business Weekly, which reviewed one of, also counts as a reliable source, even if the review isn't available online any longer. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's tenuous in the extreme; 'they're reliable sources, just that we can't access them any more' - how do we know they are?? - A l is o n  ❤ 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources needn't be available online. Verifiability states: "Verifiability implies that any one can check the cited sources to verify the information stated in a Wikipedia article. This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously, without any cost or effort. For example, some on-line sources may require payment to view; and some print sources may only be accessible in specific university libraries. The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources." In any event, I found replacements for two 404 pages at http://www.archive.org and I updated the article accordingly. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * tough call - ordinarily i'd say keep as there appears enough verifiable notability, but the article is threatened to be taken over my a very minor arrest complaint, which would be undue weight to something pretty stupid. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - more of a one time event, incidental coverage, than actual notability. Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for multiple unrelated events, sourced, documented, etc. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  11:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did a little searching added some cites, definitely is sufficiently notable. Coverage of the "one event" does not defeat notability otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just as an example, Google Books spits out this from Falling Out of Fashion‎ by Karen Yampolsky, "All the famous drag queens like Lady Bunny, Joey Arias, and Flotilla DeBarge were vogueing. Debbie Harry was there, of course; despite her age ..." A secondary source has called the topic of the article "famous", so s/he's notable. Bonus points for being mentioned in line with other people with Wikipedia articles. Other Google Books results are "Among the performers on the drag circuit is Flotilla DeBarge. Flotilla, whose act is a strange hybrid of Pearl Bailey and Eric Bogosian, thinks a double ...", (this constitutes analysis, another sign of notability), "... Imitation of Imitation of Life, featuring drag divas Lypsinka and Flotilla DeBarge, which performed to sold-out crowds in Manhattan in 2000. ...", and "... Wendy Wild, Flotilla DeBarge— Empress Of Large, Leigh Bowery and Jayne County, to name just a few. lts standout moments are many though the bitch fight...". We have articles on every last one of her co-stars in these results. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - um... you do realise that Falling Out of Fashion‎ by Karen Yampolsky is a work of fiction? Guest9999 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't care, real people appear in works of fiction. Here's the thing; I've heard of Flotilla DeBarge, just like I heard about Lisa E and Futura 2000, and I have never lived in NY. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I find it hard to accept that being described as famous in a work of fiction confers notability. If someone else wrote a book that described the individual as a small time act that nobody had ever heard of would that automatically mean they were not notable? Guest9999 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it odd that the other "fictional" drag queens also seem to have a Wikipedia article? Abductive  (reasoning) 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, as they appear to be notable - as this individual may be. I was just wanted to clarify that I do not think that the content of a description in a fictional work should not be used to establish the notability of a real-life person. Guest9999 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviews say Falling Out of Fashion is a thinly veiled memoir‎ of Jane Pratt. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was still published as a work of fiction. I'm not saying - and have not said - that the person is not notable or that the fact that they were mentioned in a book should not be mentioned in the article about them but I find the idea that a description of a real person in a fictional work can establish their notability to be baffling. We clearly disagree on this and since neither of us seems swayed by the arguments of the other I suggest letting the matter rest. Guest9999 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable.  I learned of this discussion at Wikipedia Review. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. No real sources other than tabloid gossip. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we explain the kardashians then? This person actually has 125 google news hits.  I added the cites to New York Magazine and USAToday which aren't tabloids, even if the content is not high-brow.  We are talking about drag queens here, not Nobel prize winners. --Milowent (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguing based on the existence of other articles is not valid. The cites to New York Magazine and USAToday are only passing mentions, and do not add any weight to the notability argument. Kevin (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Cla68's comments, this user is not notable- only minor gossip, and appearances as a drag queen is not sufficient for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billrogerson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All Cla68 said was "not sufficiently notable", these are not persuasive comments dear Wikipedia Reviewers.--Milowent (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny user Billrogerson. All his contributions are AfDing another article, !voting on this and... requesting adminship! -- Cycl o pia -  talk  17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Washington Post and USA Today, among many other news sources, have mentioned the person. Click the Google news search thing at the top of the AFD, and just look around.  Also, why is there a link to a forum at the top of the page?  Some people on a forum were posting how they didn't like drag queens having articles apparently, so decided to all come here and say delete. Doesn't that violate the canvassing rules or something?   D r e a m Focus  00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people" were saying no such thing, if you'd care to check. And no, there was no canvassing done. We've been over this one before in the past re. Wikipedia Review, and it was previously discussed at WP:ANI - A l is o n  ❤ 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As Alison correctly says, the matter has been already discussed time ago. I add the link in the interest of transparency: since editors sometimes discuss AfDs or other WP discussion processes on external forums (might be WR or anything else), I usually add such links when I am aware of, so that everyone can as openly as possible see "what's going on". My personal impression is that it borders to canvassing, but it seems from the AN/I it's just me: in any case, adding the link avoids at least this being stealthy and makes no harm. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  09:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and greatly expand the high-heel assault! Seriously she has been a featured drag queen in New York and that's arguably one of the toughest cities for the form. I've seen her in quite a few movies and she has numerous mentions in reliable sources. For any drag queen she would be considered quite accomplished. It would help to find interviews and articles about her if not already done. I know she's been interviewed in some LGBT documentaries but I have no idea which ones. There is also some work under Kevin Joseph, like Broadway's Threepenny Opera, which can be folded in. -- Banj e  b oi   07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Benjiboi. She is described as a legend! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the subject seems to be a bit above the common drag queen artist, the news articles do not confer notability. Appearances in movies are little more than extras.SonicRay (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, references are not convincing and indeed they point to nothing but a blank page on at least one occasion. Extra bits in movies are being manipulated to appear far more than they are; threatening to sue PETA does not add any notability; assaulting someone with their high heeled shoe and serving 45 days is mundane trivia at best - unless of course her attack was upon GW?!-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 21:49, 14 October 2009 (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.