Deletion of Snatch Game (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm a little concerned by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race&diff=895173008&oldid=895172040 this edit.  I know it's not exactly , but notifying a small group of fans of the show could certainly lead to  and skew the discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASSING||WP:VOTESTACKING)

Comment: As I explained on the talk page, an AFD deletion does ''not'' represent a ''permanent'' ban on the subject ''ever'' being notable enough for a Wikipedia article — we have ''lots'' of topics that were deleted at one time, but were then allowed to be recreated later on because the basis for notability had changed: the topic had accomplished something new that constituted a stronger notability claim than it had at the time of the first version, better sourcing could be shown to bolster passage of , and on and so forth. So the fact that an article has been deleted in the past does not mean that any followup attempt to recreate it is always an automatic speedy — if an editor can do a ''better'' job than the first time, making a stronger notability claim and citing better sources, then they most certainly ''are'' allowed to try again. Certainly we still speedy if they ''haven't'' actually done better, but if they ''have'' done better we evaluate the new version on its own merits rather than speedying.The original version literally just stated that this exists, and then went straight to the results tables without actually doing anything to contextualize its existence at all, and cited just eight footnotes of which only four were actually reliable sources at all — while this version does a ''lot'' more to contextualize the topic's ''significance'' within ''Drag Race'', and cites ''23'' footnotes of which ''only'' one is even ''questionable'' as to whether it's a reliable source or not. Which means there's a ''lot'' more content here, and ''five times'' as much reliable, notability-supporting media coverage, which means this is not "substantively the same as the deleted content" at all.Again, speedy does not automatically apply to ''every'' attempt to recreate a topic that's been deleted before, because sometimes the basis for notability and/or the quality of the sourcing have ''changed'' in the interim. This article ''is'' substantially ''better'' than the old version, and cites more than enough genuinely reliable sources to clear  whether you personally care about the topic or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: per Bearcat. The present version of this page more than passes muster for being "substantially different" from the previously deleted version, most notably due to the significant increase in breadth and quality of sources, additional context, and substantive expansion of the prose. It does not even come close to meeting  or other speedy deletion criteria. The present article is sourced with reputable, well known , including ''TV Guide'', ''Mic (media company)|Mic'', ''Vulture.com|Vulture'', ''The Atlantic'', ''The Guardian'', ''HuffPost'' and ''Gay Times''. If there is still doubt about whether the subject meets , why not just expand the article with academic literature about Snatch Game? A superficial Google Scholar search turns up numerous mentions of the subject in peer-reviewed journals, including https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/qsmpc/2018/00000003/00000002/art00001 this article, which focuses ''specifically'' on Snatch Game—not even on ''Drag Race'' in general. Other such articles (e.g. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/scp/2016/00000001/00000001/art00005# this one) reference and contextualize the segment. I don't have time to do content work right now, but I'm happy to provide access to sources behind a paywall for anyone who would like to expand this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G4||WP:RS||WP:GNG)