Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm In Love!


 * 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 moved to Draft:I'm in Love! (RuPaul's Drag Race). I have retargeted the original title to the unpunctuated disambiguation page, as an exclamation mark is not distinguishing for an exclamatory phrase. BD2412 T 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm In Love!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:GNG. The information is already contained at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3). This article adds nothing new and serves as a synopsis of the episode. It's almost word-for-word identical to the prose from the series page. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Other episodes of drag race (Rusicals S9-12, Makeover S10, Queens behind bars & divas lip sync live) all have the same format and they were not deleted. Why is The B*tchelor & I’m in Love! episodes being considered for deletion? It is just examining the episode in further detail and having all episode info in one place (synopsis, lip sync [including lip stic choice] and queens placement).
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping the article. It re-hashes the information already contained at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3) and there is also another article called List of Drag Race Episodes to which covers this topic. It is overkill and not notable for its own topic. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 08:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the other episodes of drag race episode that have their own Wikipedia page?
 * Draftify. Currently unsourced, so move into draft space to give editor some time to improve. If not improved, the draft page will be deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Another Believer stated it well. In the end, if improvements aren't made with sourcing, it'll be deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets GNG. AfD is not clean-up, and this article can be improved through normal editing activities this should never have been put up for deleting.I’m personally not a fan of underdeveloped articles but Wikipedia has a lot of them. So we base not on if an article has no sources, which is annoying, but if sourcing exists, which in this case they unquestionably do. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - If the sourcing to establish notability undoubtedly exists as claimed above, then it needs to be brought forward. There are no sources in the article.  All I am able to find is episode recaps which is run of the mill coverage for any reality TV show episode. -- Whpq (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom. Draftify is a possible alternative. Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5). Draftify may still be an alternate solution. See comments and rationale below. An argument the article passes (easily meets) GNG is not substantiated. There are no references (parent article is only sourced by a "VH1 TV Schedule"), issues of content forking, and concerns of original research.  WP:GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Being "notable" is one thing but does not mean a subject deserves a stand alone article because it exists. When notability is questioned there is a "burden of proof" that must be satisfied.  NEXIST states: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Concerns of notability is evidenced by tags and certainly concerns brought up here. One cannot actually check for adherence to any of the core content policies. The second paragraph of the lead of VERIFY states: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. it further states: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.. I don't see a valid argument for a spinoff and it doesn't appear to be size.  --  Otr500 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I’ve found a few reviews of the episode that not only verify everything in the article but also provide for extra content so the article can easily increase exponentially in size and quality. What remains is Wikipedia’s normal editing processes to improve the article. AfD is not intended to present a finished article but simply show Basic has been met and a good article is possible.McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20."A Frontrunner Emerges and Cracker Crumbles on 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' [RECAP and RANKINGS]". Towleroad Gay News. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Two of the fiercest Drag Race queens in HERstory faced off this week". GAY TIMES. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Live Stream: Watch Online". IroniqMedia.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Dzurillay, Julia; Articles, More; June 13, 2020 (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race: All-Stars 5' Episode 2 Recap — 'I'm in Love' With..." Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Sheehan, John Benutty,Paul; Benutty, John; Sheehan, Paul (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' episode 2 recap: Which queen returned as the 'lip sync assassin' in 'I'm in Love'? [UPDATING LIVE BLOG]". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20."'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' Season 5, Episode 2 recap: Everybody sing 'Love'". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Shocking elimination rocks 'RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5' episode 2". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-20."RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' ode to celebrity crushes needs a remix". TV Club. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Carreiro, Justin (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Review: I'm In Love". TV Fanatic. Retrieved 2020-07-20."'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' Episode 2 power ranking: Verse-atility". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-14. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Here's 'Drag Race: All Stars' 5's Episode 2 Lip Sync Assassin". www.out.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Fitzgerald, Christine. "RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5: Episode 2, 'I'm in Love!'". Socialite Life. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Dixon, Marcus James; Dixon, Marcus James (2020-07-13). "Lip Sync Assassins spoilers for 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5'". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Hopefully these plus others yet to be identified meet the expectations of other editors. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: Someone help me out here. There is sourcing that shows the subject is notable. A problem is that there is RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars and List of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars episodes. The subject is already covered in RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5) (a very large stub class article) that makes this an unnecessary split. As presented this becomes a content fork that would be redundant with a solution to merge the newer article back to the main article.
 * Looking over List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes it has (an example) a start class article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5). This actually appears as a list of a lists that would allow the expansion of individual episodes. I do not see this as any form of WP:FANCRUFT just over expansion that could be resolved with reorganization. Currently there is navigation issue along with the redundant coverage. Considering this I can't see an argument for keeping this without resolving the issues of an improper split. --  Otr500 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. None of that sourcing indicates notability.  A bunch of episode recaps that always comes out with each episode constitutes routine news coverage.  Where is the enduring coverage.  See WP:NOTNEWS.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify I saw a message about this article at the talk page for RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5) and replying here. As a WP:NPR if I would come across this article I would move it to draftspace and advise the editor on how to improve and resubmit the article via WP:AFC. It has the makings of a good article but the recaps would be better suited as inline citations. I do work a lot over at WP:TV and one of the key points for a standalone episode article is Reception. Most episode articles that lack a reception section usually become redirects or deleted if not improved. Since RuPaul's Drag Race is widely covered by reliable sources it is possible there are articles that would add value to the reception section. It is also possible that the summary in the episode table needs trimmed to fit within 200-250 words. The MOS:TVPLOT has a limit of 200 words for articles using the Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list. Competition reality shows are usually given *some* flexibility as they need to summarize the plot while also giving brief descriptions of tasks/challenges and/or any temporary format changes. For reality shows most hover around 250-275 words. The plot summary for episode articles are usually limited to 400 words. My recommendation is 1.) Trim the episode summary at the main page. 2.) Move the article to draftspace and allow the editor time to format the article with inline citations. 3.) Advise the editor to add a Reception section. The Unauthorized Rusical while start-class is a good template to go by and gives the editor an idea of what a Reception section could look like.    Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are valid suggestions, and all within normal editing processes not requiring deletion or draftifying. The entire reception section can be built from sources already identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: I am leaning more towards draftify. After reading the comments of Whpq and many are "recaps" (recapitulation) as opposed to original reviews. The reliability is questionable as to why not use a source that is not a recap? There is still the issue that the article currently is a duplicate split with no inline citations. Even if a subject is notable we have to correct duplication or merging to the parent article is still the only real option.
 * I randomly looked at four of the sources to start. Some of the source authors are not actual reviewers or critics but entrepreneurs that have found a way to make money advertising on Wikipedia. It works exceptionally well when a person includes advertising links on a website that does not even require clicking on an ad to get paid but just visiting the link. One example is TV Fanatic. The site is an "Exclusive Member of Mediavine Food". Mediavine is a programmatic advertising campaign and owns Hollywood Gossip, TV Fanatic, and Food Fanatic. When freelancer authors load an article with Mediavine advertising it is published, of course with the advertising, and there you go. They get paid per visitor to the site without having to click on any ads. An editor adds the site to Wikipedia and the author gets paid for every visitor. Another advertising site is the TV Club hosted by A.V. Club, owned by Great Hill Partners that also owns The Onion, Gizmodo, and Kotaku among others. Anyone can produce a recap site (advertising 101 teaches one how) as freelancers. Ironiq Network is owned by WBLZMedia that states, "This is a media channel, by the fan for the fans, period.". GoldDerby has an Editor-in-Chief and an editorial staff so it appears one out of four would be acceptable. Looking further, Gay Times and ew.com appear reliable. The bottom line is that "draftifying" will allow some corrections so the article can have a viable stand-alone status with a review of some of the "not so reliable sources" with inline citations used for actual verification.  --  Otr500 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All useful insights and interesting, and again bolstering that neither deleting or draftifying is needed. All the cited issues can be resolved through regular editing just as they are on all the other thousands of articles that need work. There is zero indication the creator or anyone else will ever see or work on the article again, whereas in main space the public will do both. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the Nom made mention "The information is already contained at...", and I have also mentioned this, yet you have commented more than once eluding to points that you claim are not relevant to AFD, without addressing the issue that is relevant to AFD. A subject does not need coverage in two articles. To split an article unnecessarily, or start an article when the subject is already covered elsewhere, is redundant coverage. Currently the article is still a WP:SPINOFF: Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.  --  Otr500 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evading going on, an episode article should delve into details more and this is where those extra details can be added, whereas to do so at the parent articles would likely be Undue. This article’s creator should have also expanded the article but we’re not on a deadline. This is all to be fixed by our regular editing processes.I too wish that it was largely distinct from its parent articles but many stubs start off in exactly this way. We need to look at the obvious potential article, not dismissing solely on the present version. All articles are in a state of being improved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree . To answer I feel like yourself and some of the other active project members missed the point. Spin off articles should only be created when there is a specific need and content goes beyond the synopsis of the episode. I think some projects get wrapped up in the idea of creating tonnes of good articles an an article for every possible related topic. - I'm not saying that the RuPaul project members are doing this but I have seen this in other entertainment wikiprojects. The aim of editing this topic should be to ensure that the information reaches as many of the readers as possible. Aside from the fact that content is already covered, very few people actually know the names of the episodes as they're not shown during broadcast. The very search term is niche. If I was a reader unfamiliar with the the topic, I would search for the season to see information about the episode or look for the list of episodes. A standalone article about the episode adds an additional layer of unnecessary navigation. I would understand if the episode had received coverage that wasn't trivial i.e. news coverage over its subject matter, an incident during the show, its filming/production values etc but it hasn't. The page views show that the topic isn't noteworthy for a standalone article and the coverage is largely sypnosis already covered. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear you, I simply disagree. The obvious example is every episode article for the Simpson’s. RPDR episodes get at least three times the coverage. The only thing this article really needs is a reception section and that’s easily possible to add given the sources already identified. So again, regular editing processes not requiring AfD or draftifying will answer those concerns. These articles are in the same boat as all other Wikipedia articles, they need someone willing to do a little work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason to cite. I'm absolutely firm coming from a UX point of view, that this is an unnecessary content fork and even if enough reception exists to make a critics reception/review section it would still be better served elsewhere. I disagree that articles should be created for the sake of it. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 08:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * UX?
 * Otherstuff is completely valid when it points out community standards. I think everyone agrees that ideally these articles were more fully formed when created but quite often articles start with much much less content than what is here already. Our job is not to judge on what is there at the moment but what easily can be there through normal editing.A reception section on this article would be inappropriate on any other article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

- UX = user experience (sorry I used some tech lingo there). UX meaning how it feels from the user's point of view, where they access the information etc. Otherstuff is never a valid reason because it doesn't justify or mean that other articles have followed the rules either. Go off rules, guidelines, GA and FAs etc. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With the helpful link provided below to a list of Good articles, it’s obvious that hundreds of episodes have been promoted, The Simpson’s has nearly 300 alone. And several series like The X-Files obviously have one or a few editors devoted to the process. So normal editing can take stubs to GA even for episode articles despite the UX potentially not readily getting them at the correct article. Normal editing can resolve every deficiency cited, and this is more than an acceptable stub in the meantime. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Question., is there currently any Good-rated episode articles? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Specific to RuPaul's Drag Race? No. Good articles about television in general can be found here: Good_articles/Media_and_drama. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:48, 28 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.