Speedway

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Popular culture. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Popular culture|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Popular culture. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list is for "... in popular culture" or "cultural depictions of ..."-type articles.


Kori King

Kori King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Can't find in-depth coverage of this person; all coverage seems to be about the season of a TV show that they're on. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Kori King page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:F983:1BB7:F09E:CFA1 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously going to try to make us believe that this article -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary- (which I am POSITIVE garners less views than Kori-Acacia-Arrietty INDIVIDUALLY) which contains a grand total of 5 sentences, 1 quote (with no references?!) and 6 references is totally fine and worthy of being the inspiration for your editor name. Yet your in-depth targeting of queer culture is valid?
Huh??? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's lay off on the character attacks; there is no reason to assume User:Zanahary has a negative bias. Would a "negatively-minded" person be contributing to articles like Mpreg and Transgender history? Just because you do not agree with their rationale does not mean you should belittle them. If anything, we should assume the user cares about the subject matter enough to be editing. Doughbo (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment contained a theory. These are not character attacks. The Zanahary article contains 5 sentences and 1 quote (without references) with a total of 6 references underneath them.
This user has been targeting drag queen pages for deletion which is a point blank fact. Why would I assume this user cares about the subject matter when they are attempting to delete pages about queens? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the edits can be summarized as eliminating the words *According to* and adding the terms *interprets [...] as* within the portion about the movie Alien for MPreg. For Transgender History the user added and . Much wow!
I have faith in the fact that drag queens deserve their Wikipedia pages because they are famous regardless of the perspective of 1 editor. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines is an attack (by saying that they are WP:POVPUSHING), and even if it was just a theory, Casting aspersions is still considered a form of personal attack, and is thus prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm failing to see where you have rebutted they're actual points (that there's no coverage outside the show), instead simply repeating WP:ATAs like "they are famous" or the idea they'll be more notable in the future. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize for my theory being considered a personal attack.
For my information, how is this not POVPUSHING? The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence in this political climate? Love that..
WP:ENT should be sufficient here. No one from the Great British Bake-Off or Survivor went on to have tours and garner international success (from my knowledge, congratulations if anyone did honestly I'd hope they have their own Wikipedia page as it would be well deserved in the event this did occur).
Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? Does their tiktok with a current figure of over 10M likes not count? This is a page for a famous entertainer, how is they are famous not a point of contention for the page to be maintained?
I don't care if I'm booted off of Wikipedia. I do care that there is an unfair amount of hate being sent towards a marginalized population, which is now affecting the standing of their wikipedia pages. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence until you have any sort of evidence, yes you are supposed to Assume good faith. It is not at all strange for somebody to notice a content area that has slipped through the cracks (so to speak) and nominate them for a wider (policy based) discussion. I seem to remember a similar "outcry" when somebody got around to applying policy based standards to Tolkien or wrestling articles.

As to your actual points: 1) You've failed to demonstrate how either point of WP:ENT is met (they haven't had roles in multiple Notable works and haven't, as far as I can see, made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment; something that would be demonstrated though sources saying so). 2) Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? No, see WP:BIGNUMBER (and also maybe WP:YOUTUBER) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added several references to the article, a few of which even use the subject's name in the headline. Even if this entry were redirected now, we'd just be kicking the can down the road and the article would be recreated in a few weeks. Almost every single contestant who has appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race has a standalone entry because being cast practically guarantees notability. Kori King has already appeared on two independently notable TV series and will almost certainly be on Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween! in the next few weeks. Combine this with additional press to be released in the coming weeks and beyond. Let's avoid the unnecessary redirect and encourage article expansion/improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of these articles are coverage of Kori King, as opposed to articles which make mention of her in their coverage of other topics (Boston drag and RuPaul's Drag Race). Two are local news from Boston; one is an interview. An interview cannot establish notability, and neither of the Boston pieces are in-depth at all. She may meet notability soon, so this article can be moved to draftspace until she does. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews can absolutely establish notability, per WP:Interviews#Notability. The question is whether the source is "marginal and only barely more than self published." Under this framework, the articles by Entertainment Weekly and Out should be considered valid supplementary material. Doughbo (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the article per WP:ENT but remove the snippet about the local show. The citation points to an event posting, not an article, which is not notable. Furthermore, there is no point in listing local appearances as drag queens will headline dozens of these a year; it is not newsworthy. No need to make useless additions to appease a critic. Doughbo (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG with numerous independent sources detailing her career as a drag queen prior and during her current appearance on RuPaul's Drag Race. The article cites, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, Out, and Queerty as independent sources that detail her performances in the Boston drag scene and as a reality television contestant. Every other contestant from Season 17 of RuPaul's Drag Race has a Wikipedia page, establishing a precedent that would make it unusual to delete this page. 70.30.55.29 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these voters with no understanding of notability policy getting this "unusual" verbiage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed here and my other statements on this page Flubberpuff (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that this subject meets notability guidelines. There are plenty of sources. This seems to be a page that is in the process of being built. Once the page edits plateau, then we can talk about long-term notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravel for breakfast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AFD has been talked about on multiple subreddits ([1], [2]) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race season 17, as the only sources I'm seeing are about that season's cast being revealed or events during that season. If the page creator, user:Gravel for breakfast or anybody else wants this draftified until such sources appear, I would be open to that too. But we don't keep article's on the changes that sources will surely appear at some point in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but looking back at contestants from previous seasons at random, every one of them has a BLP wiki page. Many of those have less info than Kori King has now. See Joey_Jay_(drag_queen) for example. It seems out of place to me to zero in on this page for deletion. If this is the standard for deletion, we have a lot of work to do to go back and delete all the drag race contestant pages with this amount (or less) of information and sourcing.Gravel for breakfast (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really not a policy-based argument, and if Joey Jay doesn’t meet GNG either, I’ll nominate his page for deletion, too. In fact, if you know he doesn’t, you should go ahead and do it yourself. That a topic area is bloated with articles for non-notable subjects (and I’m not saying RPDR is—but that’s the argument you’re making here) is neither remarkable nor reason to ignore or relax notability requirements. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being cast on Rupaul's Drag Race essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. As a multiple-emmy winning, internationally airing and supported television show with millions of fans per episode.
    The fact that you individually may not be entertained, does not take away from that. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Future notability, probably. But not yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And what precisely makes you believe that she is not yet notable based on this, when it has historically been more than sufficient for every single queen of every single previous season?
    She has a popular youtube channel with currently over 1.5M views.. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because time advances such that unrealized effects of present phenomena have not yet occurred. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What a beautiful series of words that do not in any way negate the fact that Kori King is currently a notorious figure for her popular online presence paired with her currently competing on a large-platform television show aired internationally. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You simply asserting that they are a notorious figure isn't actually what is required by either WP:GNG or WP:ENT, neither is being on a on a large-platform television show (I mean, do you honestly believe that we have articles on everybody who has competed on The Great British Bake Off or Survivor etc.). In fact, WP:BLP1E makes it quite clear that somebody notable for only one thing doesn't need a standalone article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a well sourced article about a notable contestant on a very popular TV show makes Wikipedia better. If people are looking up the Drag Race season, it makes sense that a popular entertainer from that show would have a BLP page. There is no problem to be fixed here. Everyone can move along. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are only noteworthy (according to the coverage in WP:RSs) for being on a season of a reality show, then they don't need a separate article as they are only notable for one event. I can assure you that our coverage of the vast majority very popular TV show[s] manages just fine without every single contestant (who are only covered for appearing on the show) having a separate article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing -- the contestants aren't only on one season of one series. They are on multiple independently notable shows, so I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very dubious about the idea that anyone on RPDR is automatically on multiple notable shows and thus meets ENT—Untucked is a supplement to the show, as is Whatcha Packin (which Kori has not ever appeared on). That’s a stretch of the criterion, which definitely doesn’t mean to presume notability of everyone who’s been on America’s Next Top Hatmaker, America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Behind the Scenes, and America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Extended Cut. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't recommend spending too much more time/energy trying to delete biographies for Drag Race contestants. Again, there's good reason almost all of the 220+ contestants across 17 seasons have entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very weird for specifically going after people from this show. This seems more like an agenda than a concern over “notability requirements” considering your post history. This is such a bizarre thing to do. 76.78.191.34 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Devil in the arts and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's questionable as to whether we need such an article at all, but even if we do, I'd suggest WP:STARTOVER. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture