Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Colby


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sasha Colby

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Subject is only mentioned in passing in the sources which are primarily about other performers. Main claim to notability is the subject is cast in an upcoming season of Drag Race which has not yet aired. As such, the subject is currently only briefly mentioned in press releases for cast announcements. At the moment there is zero in-depth independent significant coverage of the subject. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * the consensus ends up being there isn’t yet enough sigcov / notability for a separate article, at the very least this should Merge to either RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) or Miss Continental (which she won in 2012) instead of being outright deleted. Umimmak (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC) [Edit: Keep per the sources  found, also there's three pages entirely her about her in 100 of the Most Influential Gay Entertainers ISBN 978-0-9846195-5-9, also this profile in the LA times which came out prior to the RPDR casting announcement Umimmak (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * @ Excellent! Here is the url for the book (https://books.google.com/books?id=NbqiQHtoxGYC&pg=PP12&lpg=PP12&dq=100+of+the+Most+Influential+Gay+Entertainers+Sasha+Colby&source=bl&ots=JxF4X1ufqV&sig=ACfU3U2Xnb_bxYW4l-HjaMP9Krt5lICK_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghNaPsq78AhUTKkQIHSiXD1UQ6AF6BAgmEAM#v=onepage&q=100%20of%20the%20Most%20Influential%20Gay%20Entertainers%20Sasha%20Colby&f=false); although unfortunately those pages are not visible. Hopefully someone could get a hold of a copy. I would consider this a good source towards SIGCOV based on the entries which are visible. The LA Times piece sadly is largely an interview. As such it lacks independence from the subject for SIGCOV purposes. However, I think the book entry is significant enough that I am going to withdraw the nomination. However, @ you really need to weed all of the bad sourcing out of this article. The social media posts, press releases, YouTube, and tabloids need to be removed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @4meter4 You can direct your comment at the other editors who added that content. My initial work and subsequent edits are fine, IMO. WP:SOFIXIT. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @I would support a Redirect but not a merge as the sourcing is poor. On a side note, Umimmak, Naraht made their comment first and at AFD we keep the thread in chronological order. You really should not have placed this above Naraht's vote for AFD procedural process reasons as this does count as a vote to merge. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just opened my [reply] box before they did; when I made my comment there were no other replies. I can move it now I see they hit submit before I did, if that makes you happy? Umimmak (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary at this point (as it isn't confusing the conversation), but please try to remember this when you participate in future AFDs. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're being a bit condescending... again it's not like I didn't know these were sorted chronologically, but the WP:REPLYTOOL automatically inserts your comment based on when you open it and it doesn't notice new comments which have since come up. Umimmak (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, that is not an accurate assertion. You would have received an edit conflict message (EDITCONFLICT) in this event... in which case you would have been informed about a change to the article before saving. In such cases it is your responsibility to refresh the page and then start your edit over in order to not accidentally revert the edits of others. If you look back in the article history you also accidentally reverted one of my edits (see here) to the article, so clearly you are having some technical issues which you need to work on figuring out. Lastly, I don't think asking editors politely to follow procedures is being condescending. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You would have received an edit conflict message For the record, that's not true with WP:REPLYTOOL: Automatic resolution of most edit conflicts: Ability to reply on an old version of a page, and have your comment posted in the correct place in the newest version (if the comment you're replying to still exists on the page) Umimmak (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't personally edit using the reply tool as I am old school and use an older editing version of the encyclopedia. Anyway, let's just assume good faith with one another please. There is no reason for us to have conflict with each other. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMO, whether or not to keep this article boils down to whether she is notable for winning Miss Continental (everything else is either toosoon or not notable) which boils down to whether Miss Continental is a notable Pageant. Given the fact that the pageant is more than 40 years old *and* that there is a state level feeder system of Pageants to determine participate in the pageant (For ex. Brooke Lynn Hytes who won Miss Michigan Continental to participate), I believe that it meets the criteria in WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants). Also as a note, if this should succeed, the article should be changed to a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) as the other participating queens are such as Loosey LaDuca.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants) is an essay without community support and is not a recognized guideline or policy recognized here at AFD. We need sources with independent significant coverage proving that the pageant win was significant. This means we need in-depth significant independent coverage of that pageant and Colby's win; not just passing mentions of the pageant win. If you can find that she would likely pass WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources like this and this are more than just passing mentions in press releases. Also, "main claim to notability" is winning Miss Continental, not being cast on Drag Race. IF editors decide a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect instead of deleting altogether because users will be searching for info about her. Let's be honest, if deleted or redirected, the article will just be recreated in a couple months anyway... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ neither of these sources reach wikipedia's quality standards for referencing to prove WP:SIGCOV. The first source is literally a copy paste of a twitter feed, and the second source is a tabloid type opinion piece article full of speculation which is trying to promote the upcoming season of Drag Race. Both of these fail WP:TABLOID and WP:PROMO. This is not demonstrating good critical judgement when evaluating sources.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, not ideal sources, but coverage is more than "brief mentions in press releases" as you suggested. I'm not going to fight hard to keep this article, but deleting now is pointless because it'll just be recreated very soon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear. I was referring to the quality sources having passing mentions; not the overly promotional tabloid sources (which are often paid for by World of Wonder or the TV network broadcasting the show) which we automatically dismiss as unreliable. These kinds of articles often lack independence in addition to having verifiability issues due to their use of gossip and opinion. Personally, I think its likely after the season is aired or perhaps during that we will see better coverage, which is why I cited WP:TOOSOON. Draftifying is often done in cases like this. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the future, consider just adding a notability tag, expressing your concerns on the article's talk page, or redirecting before jumping to AfD. In addition to coverage received to date, the subject is going to get a lot of additional coverage in the coming weeks and months, but now editors will waste time at AfD. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @, that is not policy. We have WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL for a reason. This should be redirected or moved to draft until the sources are there to not only pass GNG but also verify the content of the article. That is policy. The article should never have been placed in main space which is why it was brought here. The issue isn't me but the editor or editors who decided to create the article before the sources were there to support it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a promotional platform for drag queens4meter4 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already said redirecting would have been more appropriate than jumping to AfD. Redirecting would have taken minimal time and effort, but now we're here. I agree Wikipedia is "not a promotional platform for drag queens", but I also recognize that the vast majority of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants have entries and the subject has actually done some notable things like winning Miss Continental and appearing in multiple television series. I understand what you're saying, I just don't see this entry as problematic especially given the guaranteed press coverage on the horizon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree which is why I support draftifying per WP:TOOSOON. AT AFD we routinely draftify articles under these circumstances. Note to closer If this article is draftified, I would strongly advocate for the article to be required to go through WP:AFC review and approval process before this is allowed to move back into mainspace given the overuse of unreliable sources like social media, YouTube, press releases, and tabloids in the current version of the article. Clearly some additional editorial input is needed before this can be put back into mainspace.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2023 (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.