Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kornbread Jeté (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 keep. Somewhat weakly advocated by many, but what's clear is that there is no consensus for deletion here.  Sandstein  15:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Kornbread Jeté
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP1E, and WP:ENTERTAINER. First AFD closed as no consensus, but in my opinion there was no basis in wikipedia policy to the arguments made by the keep voters in that discussion and the closer did not properly consider policy and the strength of the arguments. Lacks significant coverage in quality independent sources. Subject placed 12th on the current season of RuPaul's Drag Race, and withdrew early from the competition due to an injury. Sources are either too closely connected to the subject, not in-depth, or fail because of quality issues per policy at WP:TABLOID. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject with sources revolving entirely around this year's RuPaul's Drag Race reality competition. Nothing to indicate the subject is notable outside of season 14 of Drag Race, and that the subject should have a stand alone article. See source analysis below. Note to closer please consider the strength of the arguments in your close per WP:NOTAVOTE; in particular acknowledging issues relating to WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED such as the complete lack of significant coverage outside of routine coverage of season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race. 4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We just went through this. Is there a better way for you to appeal the closer's decision than to force editors to have another AfD discussion, just because you didn't prefer the outcome? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, California,  and South Carolina.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ It was an improper close that didn't address the relevant argument of WP:BLP1E. Neither did the keep votes demonstrate in their arguments how this subject passes WP:BLP1E (or WP:ENTERTAINER for that matter). Without a rebuttal of soundly made arguments based in BLP policy in the first AFD (nobody attempted to directly address BLP1E in the keep camp; thus ignoring the key main policy behind the deletion argument), I don't see how the closer could close with no consensus in good faith. We take WP:BLP issues very seriously at wikipedia. Rather than drag the closer through an AFD review (which would inevitably suggest a renomination) it's just best to renominate, and allow for more community participation. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you consider it an improper close, you should/could use the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review process, not just start the process over again. CT55555 (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I could have, but chose not to. Deletion review is stressful for the closer, and ultimately the end result would have likely led us back to a renomination or a re-opening / re-listing of the first AFD. This was simpler, kinder, faster, and permissible under AFD policy. All benefits to doing it this way. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Belatedly as I just saw this in the overdue log. However should you disagree with a close if mine in the future feel free to talk to me. I never mind discussion as I don't think I'm infallible. I see now that you pinged me. Not sure why it didn't show. Bad wiki, no cookies! Star   Mississippi  18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I'm revising my !vote from the previous AfD after thinking about the policy basis for the close, the sources I found and added to the discussion, and WP:BLP1E. In my previous !vote, I undermined WP:BLP1E#2 If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, both with the sources and the suggestion that a redirect was appropriate due to the potential for her career development. I also undermined WP:BLP1E#3 by adding sources that focus on the historic significance of Jeté's participation and by suggesting that this significant event could be added to three other articles. Her role also appears to be well-documented, based on the volume of coverage available. WP:BLP1E states, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met, and from this policy perspective, even though my previous !vote was saying otherwise, it appears the sources and my comments were supporting another outcome. My current !vote is weak because WP:BLP1E also states The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources and how close in time we are to the event. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She also has continued to receive coverage, beyond Season 14 of RuPaul's Drag Race, e.g. Drag Race stars Kornbread, Kahmora Hall join Hocus Pocus 2 as drag Mary and Sarah (EW, Mar. 15, 2022), Kornbread ‘The Snack’ Jeté Won’t Shantay for Drag Race Season 15 (Vulture, Mar. 18, 2022). And this Billboard interview has some independent context from the interviewer: ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ Eliminee Kornbread Jeté Gets Real About Her Shocking Departure (February 7, 2022), which adds to her well-documented role on Season 14. Beccaynr (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for making a cogent argument which highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of this topic under policy at WP:BLP1E. I personally am still of the opinion that your original assessment in the first AFD is the correct assessment and that we do not yet have enough distance or evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass criteria 2 and 3 of BLP1E. It’s WP:TOOSOON to keep the topic, and because it is a BLP we should err on the side of caution as instructed in the opening paragraphs at WP:BLP.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I voted to merge in the very recently closed AfD, but re-reading it, reflecting on the analysis added by above, and in reply to my contributions, specifically this article https://www.them.us/story/kornbread-jete-kerri-colby-drag-race-season-14 I am now persuaded to keep. It is weak because it's not a lot of non-tabloid coverage, but I think it's enough to satisfy the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again? The individual was featured in one season of a TV program and only hyperlocal coverage, nothing national. Although I find a Billboard article published in Feb 2022, might be used to prove notability, still leaning delete. If we can find more sources, I could be swayed to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per argument I made in prior afd and my own distaste for restarting an AFD immediately after the previous one didn't end in the nominator's desired result. Rab V (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This source also seems helpful for supporting WP:BASIC notability: She might live in LA, but SC drag queen Kornbread has roots in Columbia. This is her story. (Charlotte Observer, Feb. 4, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the last AfD, I believe my !vote was a "weak keep", but since that time the subject has only received more coverage. They will be appearing in the feature film Hocus Pocus 2, with coverage from Entertainment Weekly, Gay Times, them, and other outlets surrounding that. Given that the subject is appearing in two high profile projects (RPDR and Hocus Pocus 2) and continues to get coverage, I'm dropping the "weak" from my previous !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't assume notability for future events that may or may not happen.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the subject has already gotten coverage for the project listed, CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The coverage is there. --Kbabej (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Kbabej, the announcement of future projects is not significant coverage. Announced films don't always happen. Last minute cast changes sometimes occur too. We can't assume Hocus Pocus II will get made (see WP:NFF for example of how this impacts articles on films), or if it does Kornbread will be in it. Until it's actually made and released it can't count towards notability. That's policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Update, it looks like filming already is well underway. So scratch my above comments. Regardless, usually we wait to evaluate the significance of an actor's participation in a film based on whether their performance gets significant coverage in independent sources when evaluating an entertainer in relation to notability. So, I still don't think a cast announcement is useful here for notability purposes. We need critical reviews of her performance in the film for notability.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it counts towards notability with the amount of coverage she's received, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Kbabej (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Beccaynr.Thisisarealusername (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as the admin who closed the prior AfD, just noting "for the record" that I never mind having my closes challenged, but wouldn't want to put stress on the nom either. I'd have appreciated a heads up that there was disagreement with my close and we could have discussed how to handle it rather than an immediate re-nomination. Not officially taking a position, but I maintain that there isn't and will likely not soon be consensus to delete this article. Star   Mississippi  18:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep.. or whatever the equivalent of "no consensus" is for a !vote. The recent-ish keep votes have sources that basically say that she has somewhere between a supporting and minor role in Hocus Pocus 2. Which is.. better than the sourcing in the article at nom. I really can't say with any certainty at all that she's not notable, but the same goes for her being notable. casualdejekyll  21:04, 27 March 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.