Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/LGBTQ+ studies

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to LGBTQ+. 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. Edit this page 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|LGBTQ+ studies|~~~~}} 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 LGBTQ+. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/LGBTQ+ studies/archive

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies.

LGBTQ+

Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy

Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy (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)

WP:NOTNEWS - no indicaiton of sustained covereage in a whole load on manufactured outrage from both sides. ~2025-38159-71 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Completed nomination for TA, no opinion at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Weak keep I agree this is a dumb thing to be outraged over, but that doesn't determine if we keep or delete an article. For better or worse, there is a lot of national and international coverage, enough to indicate the topic is notable. If it dies down without any additional coverage, I think the decision to keep or possibly merge could be considered, but I don't see a good merge target. If Fulnecky can parlay this "controversy" into a career on the right-wing outrage circuit, I think it would end up getting merged into her bio, but that is speculation. (t · c) buIdhe 15:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Education, Religion, and Oklahoma. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Discrimination. jolielover♥talk 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Notability per coverage is clearly sustained. Additionally, I’d like to note that this user has been povpushing and edit warring (four reverts against two editors) on Girlguiding based on a stated belief that allowing trans girls to be girlscouts is not sensible,[1] while displaying a *very* thorough understanding of wiki policies, procedures, and informal etiquette entirely inconsistent with a temp account.[2] Snokalok (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's way too early to conclude that coverage is "clearly sustained"; the incident in question happened less than a week ago. Also, the nominator's activity on other articles is unrelated to whether this article is sufficiently notable. Andrew11374265 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well, combined with the fact that they sockpuppeted this thread to increase the delete count, it suggests that this AfD was not filed in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe the TA wasn't in good faith, but this didn't strike me as something that was going to have lasting notability, so I was willing to copy it over. I'm not convinced it's a delete, but neither am I sure it's worth keeping. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep; clearly notable on its own. The fact that TPUSA is backing it will likely keep it relevant until at least the end of the year, and possibly beyond that. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• I think this article is worth keeping, at least until coverage of the topic dies down. I know I found this article helpful enough when I learned of the topic today that I'm sure it will help others. Fognar777 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Fognar777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep/wait, this seems to have plenty of coverage for this point in the WP:NEVENT cycle. If this ends up being falling off the face of the earth in a few weeks, it could feasibly be renominated. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not even two weeks ago, that's the news cycle reporting on news. We'll need a bit more sustained coverage, over a longer time period. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS.~2025-38213-51 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Sock strike, same small range as ~2025-38159-71. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as of the time I write this. Regardless of the ultimate result of this AfD, while it's ongoing the article is going to stay up for at least several days. During that time, coverage of the event could rise to a level where I'd be satisfied with calling it "sustained"; however, at the moment, I don't believe it meets the WP:NOTNEWS standard. (Politicians, even those at the highest levels of the US government, as well as groups like TPUSA complain about things all the time. Some publications, in turn, summarize and/or opine on those complaints. It is my view that in this day and age, that is not sufficient to warrant an entire article for every such instance.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and LGBTQ+ studies. Bridget (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Bridget, we had those already, those pages now have two entries on this afd. It may not matter that much, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Duplicates have been removed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yep! My bad. Bridget (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I feel like this will be NOTNEWS in six months. It's just people getting upset, with a transgender person involved. Had the instructor not been transgender, this wouldn't be news. Why is a student upset over getting zero on a paper newsworthy? This happens all the time in the world of education; we remove the "transgender", there isn't a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: "Radical left" isn't news-worthy. It's a dog whistle. Universities are by nature there to provoke thought and debate. This would be similar to a student claiming their black instructor was *insert words here* if this was earlier in the Century. This is even tagged under "transgender topics" here in Wiki; this would be more suitable under an "education in the USA" tag. The focus is on the transgender individual, not the essay. This is difficult to keep NPOV in the first place and this isn't really about a transgender individual, it's about a person's reaction to someone else who's different than they are and how they feel superior to them as a result. Frankly every time someone cries "radical left" or gets mad at a transgender person, that's the focus of the news. I don't think every time someone gets involved in a transphobia incident, that it gets an article. Perhaps TOOSOON at this point, we don't even know what the results are. The prof is "on leave" and the student gets their 15 minutes of fame. If there is some sort of lasting consequence, then we could have an article; does the prof get sued and it goes to the Supreme Court, is there some sort of physical violence involved and people get hurt/die, etc. Until then, this isn't really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• The current delete rationales, which more or less boil down to I don't think this will be notable yet would seem like a clear instance of WP:RAPID, I don't see a compelling reason to entertain this right now. If this won't be notable in 6 months, the logical time to discuss this would be in 6 months, not now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Wait for now - this occurred only a week or so ago and that's not enough time (WP:RAPID) to develop any sustained coverage. It can be re-nominated in the future if there's no lasting/sustained coverage, but for now there's enough sources to work with and it's too soon to delete per WP:LASTING. HurricaneZeta^C 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite sad that stuff like this even reaches article status on Wikipedia nowadays- utter WP:NOTNEWS, and the majority of the sources are current-events commentary articles, which are not really representative of "sustained coverage". A university student writing a transphobic essay and proceeding to be angry over receiving a bad grade from her professor is not notable under any circumstance at all ever, period. Electricmemory (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Draftify — as of now, this isn’t notable enough. It’s manufactured outrage from both sides, and it’s more than likely going to be forgotten within a week or two. Draft it for now, see if it has larger coverage, then publish it if it does. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep 1) WP:NOTNEWS is for routine coverage, which this is not. When was the last time a US university TA was fired for what appears to have been blatant religious discrimination? 2) reverse-CRYSTAL problem, assuming that this won't be referenced in the future. It's impossible to plausibly say "no sustained coverage" when an event has just happened without assuming that something will die after a news cycle or two. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  "Blatant religious discrimination"? She assigned an essay reviewing recent reading, the student handed in an essay reviewing her views of the Bible. She didn't do the assignment, and another teacher backed the original grade up. Then they suspended the teacher anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify as a valid alternative to deletion given that there is coverage, but it is too soon to determine any potential long-term significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Pixie Polite

Pixie Polite (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 WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in one series of a reality TV series, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that, so WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:BLP1E and WP:PSEUDO also applies. --woodensuperman 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 11:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NENTERTAINER based on significant, independent coverage spanning a decade (2015–2025). The nomination relies on the claim that the subject is only notable for "one reality TV series" (WP:SINGLEEVENT/WP:BLP1E), which is factually incorrect given the timeline of coverage.

1. Rebuttal to WP:BLP1E, WP:SINGLEEVENT & WP:PSEUDO

The nominator argues the subject has no WP:SIGCOV outside of one show. This is refuted by the sources:

• 2015: Finalist in Drag Idol UK, a national competition (Career commencement).
• 2022: 5th Place on RuPaul's Drag Race UK (Series 4).
• 2025: Subject of significant international news coverage regarding a homophobic assault/hate crime (Sources: Out Magazine, PinkNews, Gay Community News).

Because the coverage involves distinct events spanning 2015–2025, WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT do not apply. WP:PSEUDO is also inapplicable as the coverage in 2025 is independent news reporting, not "promotional" or routine reality TV recaps.

2. Meets WP:NENTERTAINER & WP:CONSISTENCY

The subject placed 5th in a major national franchise. There is a strong project consensus that finalists (Top 5) in major Drag Race franchises generally meet WP:NENTERTAINER due to the volume of independent press generated by a "deep run."

Deleting this article while retaining dozens of articles for contestants with identical (or lower) placements and similar sourcing profiles would violate WP:CONSISTENCY.

I recommend keeping the article based on the strength of the 2025 sources (Out, PinkNews) which prove WP:SUSTAINED notability beyond the initial television appearance. Many thanks & take care. Lady carrie (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)— Lady carrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Drag Idol is not notable, and is not, as far as I can see, covered by any sources. Neither this nor an assault could remotely be considered significant coverage, and therefore not sufficent to consider that they are known for any more than an appearance on a single television series. Note that it is not the position of the placing in the series that demonstrates notability. A contestant in a reality show could win, but still not be notable if they did nothing else. Regarding the articles on other contestants, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --woodensuperman 11:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Rebuttal to "Single Event" and "Notability" Claims:

1. Drag Idol Relevance: The objection misses the point of citing Drag Idol. We are not arguing that Drag Idol itself warrants a Wikipedia page, nor that Pixie is notable solely for this. We are citing it to establish a verified career timeline that began in 2015. This factual evidence disproves the claim that the subject is a "Single Event" (2022) personality. I am happy to use time to expand the subject's page, if it is not deleted, with further career and life information.

2. The 2025 Coverage WP:SUSTAINED: The objection that "an assault is not significant coverage" confuses the nature of the event with the significance of the sourcing. Independent, international outlets (Out Magazine, PinkNews) covering a specific personal event involving the subject three years after her television appearance is the definition of WP:SUSTAINED interest. If the subject were non-notable, this event would not have generated international press.

3. Placement & Consistency: Dismissing the 5th-place finish as WP:OTHERSTUFF ignores WP:CONSISTENCY. The consensus of the Drag Race project has long been that "Deep Run" contestants (Finalists) garner enough sustained coverage to merit inclusion. Deleting this article creates a double standard against similar retained articles. Lady carrie (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To meet WP:NENTERTAINER, the productions have to be notable. Being in a non-notable production carries no weight here. Being what you call a "deep run" contestant has no bearing, and it's not about what the Drag Race project think with regard to placing, as recent deletion discussions has proven. It's the notable things they've done outside of the series which count here. Which appears to be nothing. --woodensuperman 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Refuting the claim of "Nothing outside the series":

The assertion that the subject has done "nothing" outside of Drag Race is factually incorrect. To meet WP:NENTERTAINER, one must have "significant roles in notable productions." The subject meets this criteria through work entirely independent of the reality series:

• Notable Production (2022): Featured soloist with the BBC Concert Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall for the production A Christmas Gaiety. This was a major, reviewed production at one of the world's most notable venues, distinct from the TV series. It was reviewed by Broadway World and Attitude, confirming it as a significant credit.
• Notable Campaign (2025): Selected as the face of the Thameslink "See it, Slay it, Sorted!" national marketing campaign (June 2025). This is a significant commercial endorsement by a major rail operator, demonstrating sustained notability and brand value three years post-show.

The combination of a 5th-place finish in a primary franchise (appearing in 90% of the season), The Thameslink National Marketing Campaign, and a featured role with the BBC Concert Orchestra satisfies WP:NENTERTAINER. Dismissing these verified, high-profile credits as "nothing" is an inaccurate assessment of the sourcing. Lady carrie (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how we have such a low bar for notability when it comes to Drag Race contestants. Consider other reality shows, and even winners such as Candice Brown, Nancy Birtwhistle, Luke Anderson or Isabelle Warburton don't get their own articles despite having about the same (if not more) media coverage. --woodensuperman 12:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the broader issue. There are certainly examples of alumni pages, taking a look at RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 4 such as Dakota Schiffer, that rely almost exclusively on their franchise appearance, suggesting the bar can indeed be quite low for this specific genre.

However, I believe the updates made to this article today distinguish Pixie Polite from those "show-only" examples. Unlike contestants whose coverage begins and ends with the broadcast, we have established a career timeline here (Drag Idol 2015, Royal Albert Hall 2022, Thameslink Campaign 2025, etc) that demonstrates verified activity outside the reality TV bubble. Even if the general bar for Drag Race is arguably too low, the independent career credits and sustained coverage in this specific case should place the subject safely above that threshold? Thanks Lady carrie (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Update per WP:HEY: I have now updated the article content to include the cited credits for Drag Idol (2015) and the Royal Albert Hall/BBC Concert Orchestra performance (2022), including some changes to the structure for chronological order. The article now accurately reflects the sustained notability evidence provided in this discussion. Lady carrie (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Drag Idol coverage is a bit dubious and a promotional source has been used, and their appearance at the Royal Albert Hall concert is mentioned in a single sentence: "Brighton's Pixie Polite doesn't (yet) have the high profile of their fellow queens here but largely outshone them with their sunny, upbeat manner and crowd-pleasing songs." More in depth sources are needed to establish notability. Neither of these performances are notable in their own right. --woodensuperman 13:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

References

• Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 4: I don't see much notability outside that season of the show. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect: no notability despite the enormous verbiage dropped in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Medway Pride CIC

Medway Pride CIC (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)

Does not seem to meet the threshold for notability. Vast majority of cited sources are from the organisation itself, and search reveals very little external / independent coverage. Elshad (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Organizations, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Copper Topp

Copper Topp (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 WP:NENTERTAINER, has so far been a participant in one series of a reality TV series, no WP:SIGCOV outside of that, so WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:PSEUDO also applies. --woodensuperman 13:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 13:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, LGBTQ+ studies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. Subject has been profiled in multiple reliable sources. The article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify, per the nominator, the subject has not received WP:SIGCOV. Yes there's a decent amount of references but, the coverage is not significant. It's largely in passing. Mentions of Copper Topp releasing a song, appearing in a theatre production and appearing at a small non-descript Pride event are not notable mentions. It veers into WP:TRIVIA because none of those appearances themselves are notable or significant beyond existence. Its not like the pride event, theatre production or song got coverage or notoriety, the article simply states Copper Topp's associations with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
• Draftify as suggested and is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Draftify: As suggested, it appears like this is an individual only significant for a single event. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical

Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical (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 WP:NEPISODE. --woodensuperman 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and LGBTQ+ studies. --woodensuperman 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NEPISODE episode does not meet notability requirements, coverage is limited to routine summaries and recaps without significant independent analysis discussion or lasting encyclopedic relevance. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. This article is part of a series of five articles nominated for deletion unnecessarily, in my opinion. I have experience writing Drag Race episode articles, including some with Good status such as "And the Rest Is Drag", so I'd like to think I have a decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry. Like episode in the U.S., I think many (but not all) episodes of this series are notable and I would encourage article expansion, not deletion. It is hard to focus on all at once, but I'm working to expand Rats: The Rusical, Lairy Poppins: The Rusical, Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical, and the others, as I have time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm okay with draftifyng, but WP:NEPISODE sets quite a high bar when it comes to scripted television, and to my view reality television should have an even higher bar. I just picked a US episode at random, and there is no way that "Frock the Vote!" is anywhere close to passing notability either to my view. I think the issue here is that you don't have the "decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry" that you claim. --woodensuperman 03:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Frock the Vote!" is also clearly notable. I'm moving on and would appreciate if you'd stop tagging articles I've worked on for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's not, it's just trivial and routine coverage. Same as "Dragazines" from the same season, along with many others. And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop adding non notable content to Wikipedia so I didn't have to nominate it, or at least accept it when the content is redirected. --woodensuperman 05:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 6#ep55. In general, I look for at least two sources with significant coverage of the episode to meet GNG and NEPISODE (this could be reviews, production info, etc.). Looking through the current sources:
  • 1 and 8 are recaps with social media comments; I would not consider this significant coverage.
  • 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 focus on cast members, not the episode.
  • 6 is a primary source.
  • 10 is trivial given that it covers so many episodes.

That leaves only 2 as potential significant coverage (and to be honest, my rule of thumb is that only reviews from outlets with Wikipedia articles are significant, since anyone can make a website to write reviews). I generally support more episode articles, but I just don't see enough coverage here. However, the title is a reasonable redirect term (though it should be moved to "Pop of the Tops – Live: The Rusical"). RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Support drafting en masse all these pointless Drag Race episode stubs and later evaluating each one before being accepted. Most of the Drag Race episode articles Another Believer wrote are just bare bones episode summary articles. Whether or not those episodes have enough sources and content to justify their stand-alone article is irrelevant when their current state (and often times, years in the same state) is better handled by the episode list. Dragazines is an example of such (bad) article. In 2025 we should have a higher bar for accepting articles and these pointless stubs are not it. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep as the variety of different publications in the references providing coverage for this episode specifically seems to meet the guidelines, although arguing against what was said above about what counts as significant coverage. Along with the majority of drag race related episodes recently turned into redirects, i believe this one is details and sourced well enough in comparison to remain HighlandFacts (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 6#ep55 – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)