And the Rest Is Drag: Recommend forced redirect or deletion.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Additionally, recommend the same be applied to the following articles as well.  [ reply ] Born Naked (RuPaul's Drag Race) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Glamazonian Airways ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) ShakesQueer ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The DESPY Awards ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Conjoined Queens ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Divine Inspiration (RuPaul's Drag Race) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Prancing Queens ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hello, Kitty Girls!  ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views )  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment by page creator : I am in the process of expanding this article.  Please keep this in mind before/when voting.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  For "And the Rest Is Drag", the article currently shows coverage from The Guardian and The A.V. Club , and a quick search pulls up coverage from IndieWire and Entertainment Weekly .  The previous episode, "Hello, Kitty Girls!", has coverage in similar sources (see, for instance, Vulture ).  If certain episodes have more specific concerns, a more targeted nomination should address them, but for now, these episodes seem to meet WP:N .  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll add to my previous comment: The standard for meeting notability should be WP:GNG , not WP:NTV (an essay which was not adopted as an SNG several years ago).  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 00:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per analysis by RunningTiger123: The Guardian, A.V. Club and EW are all good sources (for starters), and WP:N has been met.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For clarity, my comment refers to "And the Rest Is Drag".  I have not examined any of the other nominations.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bri Shouldn't be a problem.  I think you'll find there's a similar amount of coverage for those episodes, if not more.  Also, the article selected for me to develop ("And the Rest Is Drag") is likely to be the shortest of the season 7 entries.  Being the episode with the final challenge, "And the Rest Is Drag" has the fewest contestants, plus there was no mini-challenge and no guest judges.  In other words, there's likely more to say about the season's earlier episodes.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all into RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) . The sole existance of just reviews is not the basis for the notability/existance of an episode article, as has been discussed at WikiProject Television many times. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried redirecting all of these articles to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) , but they were all reverted.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WikiProject discussions do not supersede community-wide policies and guidelines ( WP:OWN , WP:LOCALCONSENSUS ).  If those discussions cite relevant policies and guidelines, it's more helpful to share those here so they can be weighed within this discussion.  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 00:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way is OWN relevant here?  Quite the random policy to just "quote".  -- Alex_ 21 TALK 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant that multiple editors, or a WikiProject, attempting to force articles to meet a certain standard of their own is in line with multiple-editor ownership (a few sample statements to watch at OWN point to this), but LOCALCONSENSUS makes the point more clearly so I've struck OWN from my comment.  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per RunningTiger123.  The episode has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Even if you completely ignore the lesser publications like Channel Guide Magazine , City Magazine , Gambit Magazine , IndieWire , and Vada Magazine , you still have thorough reviews by major outlets like The A.V. Club , Entertainment Weekly , The Guardian , and Vulture .  The vast majority of television episodes do not receive this much coverage.  I am not finished expanding this entry, but I think I've demonstrated that an episode is much more than the ten bullet points included in the season 7 summary table.  I've been disappointed and frustrated by the few editors who seem to enjoy placing as many obstacles in my path as possible, instead of collaborating or even assuming good faith.  I cannot be expected to flesh out all of these entries to Good article quality by the AfD deadline, but I hope other editors will agree that my work on "And the Rest Is Drag" shows there's no need to mass delete or redirect these valid articles.  We need more entries about LGBT culture and history.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep And the Rest Is Drag; merge rest per Alex 21.  It's very rare for competition-style series to warrant individual episode articles as they generally can never meet WP:GNG nor WP:NTVEP .  And the Rest Is Drag is somewhat close, but still, I think it'd probably be better suited merged to the season article.  - Favre1fan93 ( talk ) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , as I haven't decided what my ultimate thought is, but the sources as brought up here are not convincing me.  Channel Guide Magazine, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly and Indiewire are recaps and thus do not contribute toward notability per WP:NEPISODE .  Looking at them directly too, none offer anything significant in terms of critical commentary, and the way are used in the article isn't really significant critical commentary either; sparse qualitative assessment in an article that is paragraphs of plot summary is not non-trivial coverage, especially if all that can be wrung out of it for reception is a sentence and a half.  City, Gambit, and Vada are also largely recaps, and I'm not sure if they meet WP:RS .  So, that leaves only AV Club, which is a robust review that offers significant commentary.  ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even looking at WP:GNG , I remain not convinced since the sources that that article is slowly accumulating is recaps and recaps and more recaps with very little critical commentary or anything in the way of reviews in a non-trivial manner.  Sources that provide plot summary and little else in the way of other commentary do not satisfy.  It feels like we're inching toward WP:REFBOMBING with sources that simply summarize the plot rather than establishing meaningful coverage of the work.  Even if enough sources eventually turn up, it isn't serving the article to prop it up with this way, and the recaps that don't provide meaningful commentary should be removed.  ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per RunningTiger123's commentary and the creator improving the articles per WP:HEY .  AV and the Guardian are independent and show notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Bgsu98 , you can't just create a list of articles, this bundled nomination is not formatted correctly.  Please review the instructions at WP:AFD and correct this nomination.  Thank you.  L iz Read!  Talk!  08:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz , this should be fixed now.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks very much, Bgsu98 .  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and do not merge.  On "And the Rest Is Drag": plenty of full-length independent coverage in respected publications such as The Guardian , Vulture and The A.V. Club ,.  IndieWire and Entertainment Weekly are largely recaps but contain critical commentary.  The amount of critical commentary could not be contained within the season article.  The genre of the show would be an indicator before research that notability is unlikely, but after research it turns out that it does meet GNG.  On the other articles: I see no reason they would not also be notable given the episode-by-episode reviews by the same publications.  — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: to allow for the time it may not have been listed correctly per Liz's note Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I looked at a random article and while it looked pretty big with a lot of detail, it really isn't.  The episode detail is way too long and much more than the MOS:TV allows for.  Most of the text in the production section was part of a bio of two people there and was completely unrelated to the actual episode.  Gonnym ( talk ) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought a bit of context about how Andersen and Cayne have been involved with the series was relevant, but no problem with your trim.  Thanks!  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination and Merge summary of the episode into RuPaul's Drag Race . desmay ( talk ) 19:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator doesn't even offer a source assessment... They merely recommended a "forced redirect or deletion" because I reverted their redirect. Also, merging into the series entry is not plausible; I agree with User:Bilorv , who has said even a merge to the season entry would be difficult. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per commentary from Bilorv and RunningTiger123 .  Many articles such as " And the Rest Is Drag " showcase many independent coverages and notability from various publications.  Also, merging all the information into a standalone article would be very lengthy.  However, I would say it's best when creating an episode article should be in the draftspace, until the creator decides it's ready for the mainspace.  — JuanGLP ( talk / contribs ) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus