Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race season 17

Spoilers or misleading info under "Contestants progress" and "Lip Syncs" sections

Episode 7 has not aired yet, but it shows the supposed "WIN", "BTM2" and "ELIM" for that episode. Also, remove the lip syncs for episodes 7-16 under the Lip Syncs page, because those episodes have not yet aired. These edits are not helpful and pure speculation or spoilers. Remove ASAP. 75.157.4.225 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Highs and lows

So, aren't we doing HIGH and LOW on the chart anymore? Putting SAFE on everybody doesn't give us the full picture. Igortsa (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Flopqueen2000 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

AGREED. THIS GOES BACK A FEW SEASONS. 174.251.225.222 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Objection to the, in my view, improper consensus decisions on Kori King and Acacia Forgot

With respect, as someone who has been a contributor to the project for over ten years (and has also edited LGBTQ+ related and drag related articles extensively, just to fend off allegations of canvassing), I respectfully object to the decision made by OwenX with regards to the proposed merger of Kori King into this article. With respect, I don't think it is appropriate to overrule, with one fell swoop, over a decade of status quo consensus that in turn affects dozens of other articles which are essentially identical (in terms of structure / overall sources of notability) to the Kori King article. This merits further consultation or community buy-in, such as through an RFC or Village Pump discussion. Indeed, in my view the effective status quo for at least the past 10 years has been that RPDR USA performers meet WP:ENTERTAINER by virtue of having appeared on more than two, cable-broadcasted, independently notable television shows: RuPaul's Drag Race and Untucked!

My main concern is arbitrariness. Why are we selectively choosing one performer at random, when the same logic used to delete the Kori King article could effectively apply to delete the overwhelming majority of the RPDR-related articles across the Wikipedia? This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; this is me saying "If we don't think the state of Montana is notable, why are we deleting Montana and leaving up Missouri"? In addition to confusing readers who will not understand the purpose for the blatant inconsistency, selective deletion undermines the credibility of Wikipedia's coverage of drag-related topics. If we are selectively deleting articles with no rhyme or rhythm and consistency in defiance of our decades-long practice of accepting notability under WP:ENTERTAINER, that is not good.

If it's our view that being on RPDR and Untucked is not a key to passing WP:ENTERTAINER / WP:BIO, then let's go and apply this new alleged consensus evenly to all performers across the seventeen seasons of drag race, as opposed to selectively and randomly to a single performer?

I am happy to have a discussion about overturning this decision here, but also am willing to make this into an RFC or Village Pump discussion if there is a consensus that those would be a better forum. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to further enunciate my point about WP:ENTERTAINER, I'm going to excerpt it:

This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Emphasis added. Arrietty, Acacia Forgot, and Kori King have both appeared on two notable television shows (both shows have articles and pass WP:GNG). This is the same rationale that grounds the notability of dozens of other RPDR related performer articles. If we would like to overturn WP:ENTERTAINER, this merits a broader community consensus. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I am a very new and inexperienced editor, so I hope I am not overreaching here. I understand the argument for the merge and, while I disagree with it, it makes sense and is logical. What isn't logical is the arbitrary application of the rule to certain people in the long list of numerous seasons of RPDR and RPDR Untucked. It just makes sense to conclusively come to one decision and then apply it to all articles appropriately. Eimhir0238 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I believe that a discussion here is better than litigating this fight out across random performers selected based on the whims of a single editor, so I will tag Zanahary.

Instead of deleting cast members at random based on who you feel like nominating for a deletion this week, how about we have a consensus discussion on whether or not a performer who has appeared on RPDR and Untucked! (and has no other independently standing basis for notability), meets the WP:ENTERTAINER language. Then, if there is consensus on this talk page on through an RFC, we can go and uniformly apply that consensus to all RPDR performers across all seventeen seasons as opposed to arbitrary targeting. Cheers, Flip^andFlopped ツ 17:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I nominated three contestants for not meeting GNG, at around the same time. Describing this as a “crusade” and “deleting cast members at random based on who [I] feel like nominating for a deletion this week” is ridiculous. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Zanahary. You have once again failed to respond to the substance of my concerns about how WP:ENTERTAINER is being applied. I invite you to please engage about the subject matter instead of engaging in two-sentence replies that take personal offence to being disagreed with; otherwise, I will cease all replies in the interest of civility. Cheers, Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You've read my take on ENT—it's on your Talk page. I'll reproduce it here: The ENT argument is weak, as another editor on the Kori King AfD pointed out, because these notable programs are all part of the same program—Untucked is just an aftershow, and Whatcha Packin is an interview uploaded to YouTube featuring the most recently eliminated contestant. I don’t believe that that counts as appearing in multiple notable programs. Cavarrone echoed this in the AfD for Kori King. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you want to start an RfC for Drag Race contestant notability, you should do that, because this discussion here will not reverse the Kori King AfD consensus, nor affect any ongoing AfDs for biographies of RPDR contestants. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, and Cakelot1 and Oaktree b made the same argument in the Acacia AfD. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Then it should be applied to a number of other RPDR contestants who have only appeared on RPDR and Untucked! throughout the seasons. What people are finding irritating is the appearance of picking and choosing of articles when the rule could be applied to pretty much all of the new contestants for Season 17. Yet some are left alone. And I suspect there will be a few queens in the past who have only appeared on the two previously mentioned shows. I feel it just needs a consistent rule applied and application so future editors don't create new articles when they're not supposed to because they see a long list of contestants whose only appearances have been these two shows. Eimhir0238 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The consistent rules exist: they are to be found in Wikipedia's notability policies. If you know of biographies of RPDR contestants who don't meet the notability requirements, you should nominate them for deletion. This argument is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just adding my thoughts as a new member. Should we be including Kori King's YouTube career in this discussion? Their channel has 85k subscribers and has amassed around 2.3 million views total. I feel as though this plays a part in their role as an entertainer with independent notability beyond just the Drag Race franchise, but perhaps you disagree. Interludetwo (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No, notability policy does not take social media following into account. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I just think it would be improper to say that their notability comes only from their appearance on the show whilst ignoring their later well-known projects that have amassed a lot of attention and interest so far in different fields of entertainment, also including their last music release. I understand that the decision has been made but I agree with other points that it does seem arbitrary and confusing to single this article out when it arguably fits the criteria better than others who have at some point competed on the show. I am new to editing so I don't want to speak out of turn but I think Kori King is indeed up-and-coming so perhaps the article could be moved into draftspace until more information and resources can be added that fully comply with guidelines without any room for doubt. Interludetwo (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If their music made them independently notable, their article could have been kept. This idea that nominations ought not be “arbitrary” is an understandable misapprehension of how Wikipedia works: if someone hasn’t nominated those articles for deletion, it does not mean they were evaluated and ignored. It means nobody’s nominated them for deletion, be that because their subjects meet the notability requirements or because volunteers are choosing to give their time to other projects on the encyclopedia. The existence of articles on subjects that fail to meet a notability guideline does not stand as precedent that overrides the consensus-based notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Lydia Butthole Kollins

I'm unsure of whether this is due to tradition/template, but is it fair to reword the note that 'Lydia Butthole Kollins is referred to as Lydia B Kollins on the show'? Yes, that is technically what her name is on promotional material, but when she's routinely called her full name by RuPaul it feels a bit redundant. YassPills27 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to unmerge Kori King and split it back out into a separate article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FaviFake has merged a section on Kori King back in to this article based on an unexecuted AfD decision which is outdated and over a year old. Although I have no doubt this was a good faith merge, unfortunately, the Season 17 article lopsidedly goes into detail only about Kori King's life and career, whereas virtually all of the other performers have a separate article. Respectfully, this contravenes WP:UNDUE and assigns undue weight and importance to Kori King relative to other drag artists.

OwenX's AfD decision explicitly stated that "This may very well get spun-off back into a separate page at some point in the future, but that is not a valid reason to keep it as such today" (emphasis added). The AfD decision was explicitly predicated on a notability situation that applied "as of today (as in, as of Feb 2025)".

That situation clearly no longer applies some 15 months later. In the months that came after the AfD decision, an overwhelming amount of additional coverage emerged. All of these articles trace her post-S17 career and art, as opposed to coverage specifically on her appearance on RuPaul's Drag Race Season 17. None of these sources were available at the time of the AfD decision:

• "Kori King is exactly that girl you thought she was", Rachel Shatto, March 2025, for Yahoo News (on her career as a Cameo performer) (link)
• "Kori King Goes Viral After ‘Drag Race’ With Wild Cameos and Heated Words for Nikki Blonsky", Josh Azevedo, April 2025, for Gayety News (link)
• "Kori King has a Brain for Funny Business", Jude Cramer, June 2025, for Into (link)
• "Quick Drag: Kori King Takes Us Home", Christine Fitzgerald, August 2025, for Socialite Life (link)
• "Kori King Wants To Be Straight-Famous", Dylan Kickham, September 2025, for Elite Daily (link)
• "Drag couple - including Pittsburgh native Lydia B Kollins - debut new 'Pillow Talk' series", Samuel Long, September 2025, for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (link)
• "Lydia B Kollins and Kori King talk about their relationship to Pittsburgh", September 2025, CBS News Pittsburgh (link)
• "Michael Jackson hits the Emmys red carpet — here's the RuPaul's Drag Race star's story behind the look (exclusive)", Joey Nolfi, September 2025, for Entertainment Weekly (link)
• "Kori King stuns as Michael Jackson on Emmys red carpet", Mey Rude, September 2025, for Out (magazine) (link)
• "Kori King's Search History", Ana Osorno, Dec. 2025, for Them Magazine - (link)
• "CAA Signs Kori King", Matt Grobar, Jan 2026, for Deadline (link)

If even two of these sources amount to "significant coverage", then Kori King has passed WP:SIGCOV. The merge of this article back into S17 lacked sufficient WP:BEFORE searches to assess whether the situation had changed since the time of the AfD consensus decision. I am WP:INVOLVED, but this clearly and objectively passes SIGCOV and in my humble opinion a WP:BOLD third party should undo the merge. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I fully support restoring this version of Kori King (without the tags) and this version of RuPaul's Drag Race season 17, without the awkward Kori King biography. I've never seen a biography like this included in a Drag Race season article, or any TV season article for that matter. There's plenty of secondary coverage for a standalone article and it is unique that the subject was the most popular creator on Cameo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Restoring. (using format for an AFD).Naraht (talk)
• OwenX Seeing as this all arises from your original AfD decision last year, any chance you want to assess the consensus on this? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  This did not "all arise" from my decision. The merge arose from a consensus among participants in the AfD, which I reflected in my closing statement there. But as I mentioned there, consensus can change, and I'm glad to see you starting a spinout discussion to solicit a new consensus. However, seeing as your spinout attempt in March 2025 failed to gain consensus, I think it would only be fair if we pinged those who participated in it, as well as those who took part in the AfD: Zanahary, Eimhir0238, Interludetwo, Flubberpuff, Ravenswing, Cakelot1, Jamie60509, HenrikHolen, Doughbo, Gravel for breakfast, Cavarrone, and Scope creep. If I missed anyone, feel free to ping them as well. A mention in the relevant wikiprojects would also help build a more substantial consensus, ideally extending to more general criteria regarding the notability of participants in this and similar shows.

  Let's keep this discussion going for at least another week before we try to determine which way the wind blows. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. Since this seems like a WP:SPLIT discussion, I'll add the tags so it is added to the backlog. FaviFake (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also wholeheartedly support restoring the original standalone article, for the reasons mentioned above - having Kori King be the only contestant without an article feels noticeably out place considering they are perhaps the only contestant from the season to gain significant recognition for projects outside of the show (i.e Cameo). Interludetwo (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't mean to attribute any blame when I said "arises from". I just thought I would ping you because you have a connection to the whole genesis for the Kori King article being moved back in.

  If you think it needs to stay open longer, fair enough, so be it! Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 01:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  No worries. I misread the tone. Owen× ☎ 06:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Coverage now clearly shows Kori King to be independently notable. Just restore the article, I don't believe concensus is needed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus isn't technically needed, but reaching a consensus and linking to it in the edit summary where the redirect is reverted would greatly reduce the odds of a renomination. And as I mentioned, it would be helpful to reach a more general agreement about this type of article, so we don't have to go through this for each one. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The "general agreement about this type of article" is to be found at WP:ENTERTAINER. A renomination would snow-fail. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  A renomination would snow-fail
  A renomination for what? This article has already been formally nominated for splitting. FaviFake (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  For deletion ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It has been a week without opposition. Can we wrap this up? @FaviFake, Flipandflopped, and OwenX: Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@OwenX: Thanks! I've removed the merge tag. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)