Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSSG)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sexuality and gender. 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|Sexuality and gender|~~~~}} 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 Sexuality and gender. 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:
Purge page cache watch

In addition to AfDs, this page also tracks Categories for discussion, Templates for deletion, Miscellany for deletion, and Deletion review, but these discussions are not automatically expanded here. You will have to follow the links from here to the discussion pages. Instructions for adding these discussions to this page are provided in the comments when you press "edit".

For important information about categorization:

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality


Articles for deletion

edit

Man or bear

edit
Man or bear (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)

Notability; Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, and not every Twitter drama or meme can have its own Wikipedia page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SUSTAINED. All the media articles are from within a timespan of a few weeks or months. Nobody's going to remember this meme a year from now. Hell, people barely remember it already. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:GNG clearly isn't a concern here considering how much sourcing is available, and we can't exactly predict whether the meme will remain popular or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have to predict much; almost all the sources are from late April to early May. The meme's already long since died. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article, with all of its references, makes it abundantly apparent that the subject was a flash-in-the-pan viral meme without any significance beyond how many people heard about it and talked about it for about a month or two. This wasn't a scientific study performed by people looking to answer a question, it was the results of a content farm hunting for clips to post online. Not to mention the article has a good number of glaring issues, from the completely unnecessary "illustration" made from image cutouts to the whole section on "Scientific Validity" focusing on a seemingly relevant statistic rather than any insight into the methodology (which, ironically, is found in a previous section, but still comes from purely journalistic commentary). Kodiak42 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This is not a biography where WP:BIO1E might apply, nor is any of the coverage "routine" (where WP:NOTNEWS might apply). It is clear that the outside world has already "taken notice of it" and it is thus a notable topic. C F A 💬 03:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't some flash in the pan meme, it's something that's been covered extensively by several reputable publications. Most memes are never notable and don't ever meet GNG, while this subject clearly does. I disagree strongly with Closed Limelike Curve's argument that no one will remember this a year from now given that plenty of coverage talks about this meme's wider context with regards to sexism and everyday culture. [1][2][3] There are easily many more sources out there, many of which are already in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struggle to imagine I'm on an encyclopaedia reading the pabulum in this article, half of it feels like a coatrack too. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: Do you have a policy based argument for deletion instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They cited WP:COATRACK, but I don’t see how that essay applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is unencyclopaedic and I do not see any source that could improve that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic how? It's a studied phenomenon/event. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

edit
AfDs for this article:
Themes common in gay porn (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Rodríguez

edit
Verónica Rodríguez (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)

Subject is a fairly unremarkable pornographic actress, cited almost exclusively to industry press and the IMDb-equivalent database for that industry. She has music ventures outside of that field, but none rising, as yet, to an encyclopedic level of notability. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4][5], to give some examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link #1 is promotional. Link #2 is a standard pornstar interview in AVN. A non-independent churnalism source. Neither contribute to GNG notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is link #1 promotional? It is an article by El Estímulo [es], an independent outlet. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage by independent reliable sources found in the article nor in independent searching. The references are low-quality even by porn bio standards. The article even debunks the AVN source mentioned above as industry-generated kayfabe. No reliably-sourced claim for passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The result was redirect‎ to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction. If someone writes an article about the book, the redirect could be re-targeted. RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

edit
The East Is Blue (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)

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 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.

Darby Lloyd Rains

edit
AfDs for this article:
Darby Lloyd Rains (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)

16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I have spent too much of my volunteer time checking much of the article's supposed references, and they are just a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions and unreliable sources that do not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Curious to know which sources precisely can be deemed "unreliable", except IAFD, which I didn't add myself and that can be removed (feel free); and the source for her role in "This film is all about..." (which I (had) tagged myself as poor, in the hope that an expert or any other user could add a better one, the film being by Damiano) (NB- I just removed both references). "supposed references" is also an interesting choice of words (are they not real? are they fake? Did I make anything up? are there not there?); and how much is "much" of 41 footnotes? 12, 38? As for WP:REFBOMB, well, I did my best to source every statement and role in the partial filmography (more exists) and I don't think (such was not my intent, at least) that any of the references is used in any of the 4 ways mentioned in that essay. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, is a guideline, and would seem the applicable guideline, and it states, "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." (the field of entertainment being cinema/acting) Is it not the case and are the coverage and mention/appraisal of her roles in the reviews of her most notable films, for example, not sufficient to prove it? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Bludgeon Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning? OK. Was it when I was replying to your comment on my !vote and on your comments to every reply I gave to others, or when I mentioned you didn't bother to check the page and your rationale was inaccurate? Or when I asked what you found in your BEFORE? Or when I replied to Liz's question in her aside?
    Or simply when I commented on the 2 !votes? The link you provide most kindly, states:

    It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.

    There are only 3 !votes here, including mine. I've replied, politely, I think, to point "per nom" was a bit surprising and ask a question to identify potential unreliable sources. I'll stop commenting at all here, but I am not exactly certain I am the one bludgeoning the process here, even though my replies took me more time and work than yours took you, most obviously. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a clear pass of WP:NACTOR, for starring roles in multiple notable films? We even have independent articles for three of the films listed in this article already. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and in addition to those three, I'm convinced that Angel on Fire, which we don't have an article for yet, also is a notable film, simply on the basis of the sources already in the article. Abduction of an American Playgirl is, too. And many of these reviews are from decades after the debuts of the original films! These aren't just "notable in their time" films. These are films with real lasting notability. The more I look the more convinced I am that this is an obvious WP:NACTOR pass here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another academic article to the sources here. This is where I'll stop. We've kept articles on WP:NACTOR grounds on much, much less. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The outcome here depends on NACTOR rather than GNG: further consideration of NACTOR would be helpful in determining a clear outcome. At the moment this is leaning keep because the arguments for deletion are countering GNG rather than NACTOR, but I would prefer to wait for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

edit

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

edit

Proposed deletions

edit

Deletion review

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sexuality_and_gender&oldid=1240899708"