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.
Keep per GNG. Also, nominating editor should know the page should be redirected, not deleted, if the subject is not independently notable. But I believe there's sufficient secondary coverage. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see
example1 and
example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Folks, I get that you're passionate about this subject, but none of you have cited any instances of
significant coverage in
reliable, independent sources of Vivacious specifically. Everything in the article, and everything I saw in my own search, either wasn't significant coverage, or wasn't an independent reliable source.
FOARP (
talk)
16:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
She was on more than 1 show, so that statement alone is wrong, plus she passes the NACTOR. - 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605
Sorry, but just have a role on multiple shows is not enough. Per the guideline an actor needs multiple "significant roles." Being a contestant on two iterations of the same reality TV show, and being a "backup dancer" in a couple other shows doesn't meet that standard. -
GretLomborg (
talk)
18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - then redirect, despite the complete lack of comprehension by the keep fan !votes above. No notability except in relation to the show.
Onel5969TT me00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete At first I was surprised when I did a quick google search for Osmond Vacious when I found a few results. These results however did not actually seem to be meeting
WP:GNG because all of the results were lists of facts with the same picture of her; one result even briefly spoke about her zodiac sign and astrology. This is all not to mention the fact that I had to search "Osmond Vacious" because "Vivacious" didn't show anything relating to this topic.
Grapefruit17 (
talk)
01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Many sources don't mention drag queens' real names, in this case Osmond Vacious. No, searching "Vivacious" by itself won't help, but adding "drag queen", "drag race", or "Club Kid" will narrow down results. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)21:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That is incorrect, she passes NACTOR. - 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605
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.
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.
Keep per GNG. Also, nominating editor should know the page should be redirected, not deleted, if the subject is not independently notable. But I believe there's sufficient secondary coverage. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see
example1 and
example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Folks, I get that you're passionate about this subject, but none of you have cited any instances of
significant coverage in
reliable, independent sources of Vivacious specifically. Everything in the article, and everything I saw in my own search, either wasn't significant coverage, or wasn't an independent reliable source.
FOARP (
talk)
16:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
She was on more than 1 show, so that statement alone is wrong, plus she passes the NACTOR. - 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605
Sorry, but just have a role on multiple shows is not enough. Per the guideline an actor needs multiple "significant roles." Being a contestant on two iterations of the same reality TV show, and being a "backup dancer" in a couple other shows doesn't meet that standard. -
GretLomborg (
talk)
18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - then redirect, despite the complete lack of comprehension by the keep fan !votes above. No notability except in relation to the show.
Onel5969TT me00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete At first I was surprised when I did a quick google search for Osmond Vacious when I found a few results. These results however did not actually seem to be meeting
WP:GNG because all of the results were lists of facts with the same picture of her; one result even briefly spoke about her zodiac sign and astrology. This is all not to mention the fact that I had to search "Osmond Vacious" because "Vivacious" didn't show anything relating to this topic.
Grapefruit17 (
talk)
01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Many sources don't mention drag queens' real names, in this case Osmond Vacious. No, searching "Vivacious" by itself won't help, but adding "drag queen", "drag race", or "Club Kid" will narrow down results. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)21:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That is incorrect, she passes NACTOR. - 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605
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.