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)reply
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 (
Star Mississippi) 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)reply
Self reported. People in entertainment are not always reliable about self reporting an accurate age. Also fails per
WP:TWITTER. TWITTER should never be used to verify content on wikipedia.
An Indian celebrity news tabloid. Essentially a regurgitated press release from World of Wonder provided to the media. Press releases lack independence per AFD policy. Further MEAWW often publishes stories for pay by the subject of its articles and works as a PR platform for money; thus anything it publishes lacks independene and cannot be considered reliable.
As an interview, lacks independence from the subject and should be used with caution as a way of verifying information. For notability purposes, cannot be used as evidence for meeting GNG.
Promotional advertisement for an event. Lacks independence and has limited reliability (only proves a future event was advertised not that it actually occurred; we need an independent review covering the actual event and published after it happended to verify it.)
This is a routine
WP:TABLOID recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was discussed. As a simple recap as opposed to a critical review, I would consider this closer to a primary source rather than a true secondary source. It can verify content about this episode of show and her involvement, but it lacks significance due to
WP:ROUTINE and
WP:NOTNEWS for the purposes of evaluating
WP:GNG. )
This is a routine news recap of a television episode of Drag Race in which Kornbread was named as a highlight. This is approaching a positive critical review, but it's such a short article and lacks any significant analysis of Kornbread and her drag (merely stating what she did and not really analyzing why it worked and why it made an impact) that it's not really what I would consider a "review" but a PR puff piece for the TV show. In other words, it's a thinly written news story and therefore lacks significance for GNG purposes.)
Off all the sources in the article, this is the best one. It's independent and Kornbread is the main subject. But is it really significant? A drag contestant getting injured early in the season and having to withdraw does not leave much of a legacy. Certainly, nothing here that shows Kornbread is significant outside of the reality competition and deserves a stand alone encyclopedia article separate from the article on the television series.
A link to the generic login page of instagram. This doesn't verify anything, including the content that it claims to verify where it is cited in the article.
Promotional article for upcoming 14th season (now airing) of RuPaul's Drag Race. Essentially boils down to highlighting that this is the first season of Drag Race with multiple trans constestants. Given that there have been many trans queens now on the show in past seasons, this seems to be more of a pertinent fact for the article on this individual season of the show as opposed to providing any significant coverage or notability on Kornbread as a drag artist. What did we learn about her other than she is trans, a drag queen, and from L.A. who is competing on the show? Nothing.
This is the second promotional article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season (but published before it aired to promote the show) of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14).
This is the third article focusing on the casting of two trans women for the currently airing season of Drag Race. Again, this doesn't show significant cover of Kornbread Jeté, but significant coverage of
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14). Also lacks independence as an interview.
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
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)reply
@
Another Believer 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)reply
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)reply
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! StarMississippi 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Comment. Thank you
Beccaynr 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)reply
Weak Keep I voted to merge in the very recently closed AfD, but re-reading it, reflecting on the analysis added by
Beccaynr 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. StarMississippi 18:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.