Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender/archive

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:

Articles for deletion

Emma Curtis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The primary notability claim here is that she serves on a county council, which is the local level of office and thus has to pass NPOL #2 (where the test hinges on depth of coverage, not just existence) -- and "first member of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an instant notability freebie in and of itself, so she isn't exempted from having to pass NPOL #2 just because she's transgender.
But three of the five footnotes here are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the two sources that do represent reliable third-party coverage in real media are just local media covering the election itself, a type and volume of coverage that every single county councillor who exists at all can always show.
As always, the key to making a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article isn't to simply verify that she exists -- it's to write a substantive and well-sourced article detailing the impact of her work in politics (specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her work had on the development of the county, etc.) But since she only just assumed the office four days ago, the only content here that's even attempting to address the impact of her work is generic advertorial fluff about her feelings about being an inspiration and role model, rather than documentation of any concrete achievements in office.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's been in office for long enough to actually have a quantifiable record of achievement to write about, and a substantial volume of sourcing to support that -- but a county councillor needs a lot more than just two hits of run of the mill local coverage on election night itself to become permanently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Kentucky. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes I agree to the deletion as the subject fails in-depth notability as per GNG. Wikipedia is not a place to be used as a profile, rather, an encyclopedia. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree on a number of the claims presented here, especially the allegation that "the two sources that do represent reliable third-party coverage in real media are just local media covering the election itself". The Queer Kentucky article referenced is a biographical profile on here that was created due to her status as a civil rights activist. So, she's a "local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage" per WP:NPOL, and her work in civil rights activism is what originally made her notable. Additionally, I disagree with the assertion that this article presumes a "instant notability freebie in and of itself [...] exempted from having to pass NPOL #2 just because she's transgender" - Curtis was already a notable figure as an activist and would have been a quality candidate for an article before she was elected, the accomplishment of being "first" is just a cherry on top of her already notable life.

My proposal: I can improve the article by adding a few additional sources that reference her activism prior to seeking elected office. I will also go through with a fine comb and fix any language that could be seen as non-objective or overly positive ThatLexingtonKyGuy (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hold off a few days until the creator has a chance to fix the issues identified. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ rights in Northern Nigeria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a straight copy/paste of this page: LGBTQ rights in Nigeria. All the main topics already covered in the main Nigeria page. All other similar pages go by country, not regions of countries. Mamani1990 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBTQ rights in Nigeria: and redirect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LGBTQ rights in Nigeria per Vanderwaalforces. An unnecessary WP:SPLIT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom is incorrect and misleading; this article is not "basically a straight copy/paste of this page: LGBTQ rights in Nigeria". The information in this page is about the North of Nigeria, and it's better and more detailed than what is written in the LGBTQ rights in Nigeria. Also given the contrast in LGBT rights in the North compared to other parts of Nigeria, I think the article is very appropriate and should be kept and expanded. As for the part about "All other similar pages go by country" that is also incorrect, we have for example LGBTQ rights in Texas (seeCategory:LGBTQ rights in the United States by state), LGBTQ rights in Aruba, and LGBTQ rights in Aceh FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Procedurally, as long as credit is given, a new article can be "basically a straight copy/paste," although the phrasing is in this case questionable taste. There are several sub-National articles in this series, as noted above. Thus there's no valid reason given. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic county of over 60 million people. Bearian (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Heart ^(talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bop House

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - references themselves don't seem to stand up to WP:SIGCOV, but could probably be redirected to Content house. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2025 (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 Withdrawn‎. Looked at the book source again and that plus the thesis I am just going to withdrawn this. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court-martial of Federico Merida

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, no coverage outside of the immediate period. There is a one sentence mention in 10.1080/01436597.2010.518790, and a few masters theses (not RS) (mostly over him using the gay panic defense), which is not enough. There is a single source that contributes to notability, [1], which has about two pages but I am unsure if this is enough. If kept it should be moved to Murder of Falah Zaggam (what the only secondary source calls it). PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, and Iraq. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This phd thesis [2] allegedly says something, but IDK if it is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 6 January 2025 (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.

Puppy love

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As noted in a message on the page, 'This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.' The article contains a non-dictionary definition and characteristics of puppy love, a sub-article on puppy love in China related to China's marriage age laws, and statistics which do not mention puppy love of Taiwan, China and the United States. Though the article has existed for a long time, it is still rated as 'Start-class' on Wikipedia's content assessment scale (see the Talk page). The article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignemnt between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023, and yet is still rated as a 'Start-class'. There was a requested move on 9 February 2023. The article is not encyclopedic in nature, and is minimally informative, I'd recommend deleting it. Re34646 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is definitely in poor shape, but I think the concept of 'puppy love' or a 'crush' is fairly trivially notable. The article cites plenty of sources in gender/sexuality studies, literary studies, and adolescent medicine, and I have no doubt at all that there are many, many more sources out there discussing the idea of childhood/adolescent infatuation. A lot of the material on China does need to be cut or slimmed down, but I don't think the article is anywhere near bad enough for this to be a case of WP:TNT. MCE89 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MCE89. Short of a disaster, which this isn't, AfD is not for editing fixes. Literally hit songs, films, and books have been created on this topic. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AntoloGaia. Sesso, genere e cultura degli anni '70

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reviews, does not pass WP:GNG or NBOOK. The "reception" is the book blurb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Part of a walled garden of articles related to the author. Cavarrone 11:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with BDSM clubs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRITERIA - this is a directory of universities with a specific type of club with no encyclopedic merit past that the club exists. We could perhaps merge the lead into the main article (BDSM). ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge/redirect. This is simply something that we shouldn't be cataloging here and is certainly not for a general reading audience or anyone actually attending a school. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of pages here aren't written for a "general reading audience", whatever that might be; the people joining these clubs are attending schools; Wikipedia is not censored. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NLIST due to multiple sources (starting with the first three currently given in the article) discussing the set as a set. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources alluded to immediately above might justify an article for the overarching topic of BDSM clubs at universities, but not a directory (WP:NOTDIR) of universities that happen to have one at the moment (or ever?). WP:IINFO applies here as well -- even in such a hypothetical article, I'd argue against the inclusion of such a listing within it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "indiscriminate" about this list? It's not a list of all student groups of all types. WP:NOTDIR points to WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is an easy standard to meet here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't do that, nor is there any particular way that could be done here. The fact that random college X has random student club Y isn't noteworthy. Again, notability of an overall topic is not an automatic license to compile a list of every single example that can be found. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the sources could justify an article about BDSM at universities. My problem with this list is that student clubs are so temporary and informal that it seems impossible to produce a useful encyclopedic list of universities that "have a BDSM club" in any real sense. The sources in this list range from very credible (e.g. Columbia University) all the way to the many entries that may well have been jokes (universities often make it really, really easy to 'register' a club!), or that appeared in a student media outlet or directory years ago and probably didn't exist for long. One citation is a full twenty years old - surely it's doubtful whether that club still exists? And several entries seem to be for one-off events rather than actual clubs. I think the nature of student clubs just makes it impossible to have a verifiable, objective inclusion criteria for whether a given university "has a BDSM club" in any meaningful sense. Does the club have to have members? Does it have to hold actual events? Does it be more than one person's short term project? At the moment this is really just a list of trivia about universities where something vaguely BDSM-related has ever been reported, not a verifiable list of universities per WP:LISTCRITERIA where you would actually find a BDSM club. MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NLIST, like List of countries with McDonald's restaurants or List of typefaces included with macOS does. I Agree with MCE89, that the criteria is a bit vague and should be defined better, but I think that is possible. In opposite to List of chemical compounds with unusual names having a BDSM club is objectively check-able by specified criteria. Nico Düsing (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, doesn't mean this one should too. The McDonald's list is...middling, because there's at least some background info along with the list entries, but the primary sourcing to the company itself is troubling. It would be better off in prose about the company's activities around the world generally. The typeface list is terrible and I would strongly argue for its deletion as well. You're merely stating that it passes NLIST without really explaining why, or addressing the concerns about NOTDIR, IINFO, etc. that have been raised. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "universities with BDSM clubs" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Johnson, M. Alex (2012-11-30). "50 Grades of Grey: Harvard becomes latest college to accept BDSM club". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "While Harvard's club drew widespread attention this week, it's far from the only BDSM club officially recognized by, or at least tolerated at, U.S. colleges. ... At the University of Minnesota, Kinky U is Student Organization No. 2370. ... At Tufts University in Medford, Mass., Tufts Kink started meeting this semester. ... There's no national registry of campus BDSM groups, but consensus is that the oldest is at Columbia University, in New York, where Conversio Virium meets on campus every Monday night at 9. ... The point is to "raise general awareness of kink and to promote acceptance and understanding of BDSM," according to the bylaws of Risk-Aware Consensual Kink, or RACK, at the University of Chicago."
2. Grasgreen, Allie (2012-12-04). "Fifty Shades of Crimson: Harvard is just the latest campus to sanction a kinky sex club, which students and experts say is a healthy and positive educational tool". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "For all the ruckus it’s causing, you’d think the new BDSM club at Harvard University was actually a new idea -- and a controversial one, at that. Not so. A lot of people seemed taken aback by last week’s widely reported news that – gasp – Ivy League students like kinky sex, too. But clubs for students interested in BDSM – short for bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism – have been around for quite some time, at least on a handful of campuses (including Cornell, Tufts and Yale Universities). And sex educators say that’s a good thing."
3. White, Rachel R. (2012-11-16). "The Story of 'No': S&M Sex Clubs Sprout Up on Ivy Campuses, and Coercion Becomes an Issue". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "The popularity of 50 Shades of Grey has accelerated a mainstreaming of the BDSM subculture already underway—the initials stand for bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism—and the trend has been especially pronounced in our more elite institutions of higher learning. Columbia has a BDSM group. So do Tufts, MIT, Yale and the University of Chicago."
4. Křivánková, Lucie (2024). BDSM Communities in Central Europe: Societal Perspectives. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 159. ISBN 978-3-031-75618-4. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The interest of university students in activities related to alternative sexual practices is also evident from the increasing number of official events at universities in the USA and even the establishment of clubs dedicated to BDSM and other sexual activities under the auspices of universities such as the University of Columbia, University of Chicago and Vassar College (Crocker, 2012). In Europe, academic and university activities devoted to BDSM can be found, for instance, in Ghent University (2020) in Belgium and the University of Helsinki in Finland (2020)."
5. Coslor, Erica; Crawford, Brett; Brents, Barbara (2017-08-01). "Whips, Chains and Books on Campus: How Organizations Legitimate Their Stigmatized Practices". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2017 (1). doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12142abstract. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The study notes: "We examine the intersection of core stigma and strategies in emergent, purpose-driven organizations through the provocative case of official university student organizations focused on kink and kinky sexuality."
6. Meeker, Carolyn (2011). "Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism (BDSM) Identity Development". Proceedings of the Tenth Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference. Florida International University. p. 158. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Iowa State University Cuffs is an educational group through which students learn about BDSM and safe, consensual, and non-exploitative human sexuality. Their educational topics include how to safely meet a play partner; bondage; negotiating a scene; and preventing sexual assault (CUFFS, 2010). Risk-Aware Consensual Kink (RACK) is the University of Chicago BDSM club. As a registered student organization, RACK raises awareness about kink and provides resources to interested students (RACK, 2010). Though such groups seem to be safe forums in which students choose to explore and develop their identities, not all colleges have similar groups."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list can be improved by removing entries that are not sourced to reliable sources. The list can be improved by modifying the inclusion criteria to be "former and current" clubs so that entries can remain even when the clubs no longer exist. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources addresses the concerns raised or demonstrates notability sufficient for creating such a list, rather than for general topic itself. Also, please stop spamming walls of text into deletion discussions, as it's generally disruptive. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given Cunard's late addition of sources this seems worth a relist of what would otherwise be weighted (weakly) towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the issue is having a list, rather than an article for the general topic itself, then we could resolve that by changing the title to something that doesn't say "list of" (and some ordinary editing within the article text). Per WP:ATD, that's an argument for moving, not deletion. The issue of information growing out of date (student clubs are known to shut down on occasion) could be addressed by, for example, including "as of" dates in the article text. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The topic is notable, but the list is sorta kinda just a directory. Conyo14 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists through the significant coverage in reliable sources, so I think a title with "list" in it is fine. An article about the general topic of "universities with BDSM clubs" possibly could be written but care must be taken to write it in a way that complies with Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. The list could be improved by adding more information about each entry and possibly converting it into a table. The "Description" column of List of selfie-related injuries and deaths is an example of a list that provides more context. I agree with you that per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, an article having room for improvement is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35.139.154.158 Buffs (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. ~~I'll add~~I have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with user above who pointed out the event got reliable news coverage eight years after it happened, making it notable. XwycP3 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought this was a SNOW KEEP by now, as we have a) transformed the article with many new sources b) demonstrated multi-year notability and c) different editors have advanced sound reasons for keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's WP:EVENT assertion - reliable sources were citing this faux thesis years after its publication. Also, as Chiswick Chap has noted, its notability is not in doubt.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Reywas92's reasoning. desmay (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the possible BLP considerations (i see the person has apparently maintained a private life since and cannot be found via this article), alas this is plainly a notable event. Many news articles are still available on the event and I believe Wikipedia's rules mean we cover controversial events better on average.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources from 2010 through 2018 shows this was not a BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Portal:Transgender

Another Portal not supported direct by any Wikiproject. Created in 2009, remained abandoned until 2019 when received few editions, on the occasion of the first MFD, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure, based on content forks. Random selection of content with no apparent concerns with WP:V, WP:POVFORK, or WP:BLP. Narrow topic already covered in Portal:LGBTQ. Page views in last 30 days 1,888, against 117,937 of main article.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand what is going on here. Is the proposal to delete Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 or to delete the whole portal? If it is to delete the whole portal then why is Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 being made an issue of? It seems to be a page completely orphaned from the rest of the portal. Maybe this illustrates that the portal has cruft in its namespace but I don't see how that reflects on the fundamental validity of portal itself. It seems to be irrelevant to, distract from and maybe even to undermine any argument for deletion of the whole portal. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see now. It is one of four, literally random images shown on Portal:Transgender/Intro and What links here doesn't know about that. That's a bad idea. I think there is a problem with Portal:Transgender/Intro. I'm tempted to revert to the previous version although doing so would leave the transcluded sub-pages orphaned. I'm just going to comment out the random image selection for now so that the inflammatory image is not shown to 1/4 of readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal claims that there is an inflammatory image even though there isn't. Such a removal may be linked with violating WP:NQP and most reasons for justifying a removal of an image are 100% opinion and 0% fact.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... what??? I'm trying to give this portal a chance not to be deleted here!

The image is obviously inflammatory and I can very easily imagine a situation where a screenshot of the Portal, including that image, was used by transphobes to justify their (very obviously false and insincere) claims that trans kids are a danger to society as well as to attack Wikipedia itself. Would we even be having this MfD if it were not for that image? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Africa has 1.491 against 158.866. So that's actually a reason to keep. Skemous (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see anything inflammatory, especially images. Also, if a flag was to contain weapons (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Angola, etc.), would you classify that as inflammatory and needed for removal? You can't just simply do that, especially because of WP:NOTCENSORED.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference. Those flags are... actual flags. They are identified as such and have contexts which make them meaningful for use by an encyclopaedia. This image is a user generated image with no meaningful context. It is not associated with any specific organisation. It has no date beyond when it was uploaded. It's fine for the Wikimedia Commons, as it is clearly uncopyrightable, but it isn't any use here. (OK, it would be fine on a User page but I mean that it is no use in an article or portal page.) I've not put it up for deletion and I very strongly resent the accusation of censorship.

Now, I do get why some people like that image. If I was a trans kid (I'm neither) and I was putting up with the heinous shit that they are being subjected to, then I'd think that that image was metal af! I'd probably have sheets and sheets of stickers of it and stick them up everywhere in town that the cops weren't looking. I'd definitely feel encouraged to see similar stickers pasted up by other people. I understand, and sympathise with, the motivation to do the same thing here but that doesn't mean that it belongs on the Portal page, at least not without context and explanation. As I mention above, its presence could easily be used by transphobes to demonise trans kids and to attack Wikipedia.

Yes, there is an element of respectability politics in what I am saying here and, yes, respectability politics is cringe, but let's focus on saving the Portal, not just argue about that one image. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Net negative for readers. Readers who get to the end of the Transgender article should not click on the link to Portal:Transgender but should read another article about transgender people if they want to keep learning about this topic. There's no benefit for readers in being directed toward this inferior content fork as opposed to any mainspace page about transgender people. Having the wrong architecture and lacking support from a WikiProject, which is inevitably accompanied by a lack of maintenance, is a sure signal that the portal should be deleted.—Alalch E. 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to save this? Would reverting to the older version help? Could another WikiProject "adopt" it? Can we make it a net positive for readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that an editor added this portal as the second of the two portals allegedly mantained by the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies ~~in 2020 (see diff)~~ (edit: corrected below, see reply—14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). There has never been any discussion about organizing maintenance or improvement efforts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. There is a 2008 post about how the portal "needs some content added" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 17#Portal:Transgender), and that's it. The state of the portal, a look at its page history, and a look at its talk page show that it is unmaintained. There is also the Portal:LGBTQ. It is better. That might be the portal which one or more WikiProject LGBTQ+ members want to maintain, not the Transgender portal. I don't think that anyone wants to adopt it. Reverting to an older version would not help. We can't make it a net positive for readers, it should go. —Alalch E. 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't add the portal to the project's scope in 2020, that was done in 2010. My 2020 edit was just a result of retiring the old project navigation template that previously linked to it. It has always been maintained (notionally if not in practice) by WP:LGBTQ+.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —Alalch E. 14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I want us to find a way to save this but the problems being raised here are real and I'm not sure what the way forward is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted then that should be without prejudice to anybody having another go at making a valid portal under this name in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many arguments based on WP:OTHER. This MFD is based on recent discussions about problems related to the outdated “Purposes of portals”. The image in question and the number of pageviwes are just examples of these problems stemming from a lack of maintenance and WP:PWP. As another example, the portal is linked in only 391 articles in the main space, a very small number in a universe with millions of articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The portal is supported by WP:LGBTQ+, and has been since 2010. I wouldn't contest that it has somewhat fallen by the wayside over the years, but I think it would only be fair to alert the WikiProject of the need to improve the portal and see if there is any current interest in doing so. If nothing is done in a few months, I would support selectively merging into Portal:LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supported in name only. The nominal support didn't convert into visible improvements over many years, causing the portal to still have the bad and unsustainable architecture. It isn't fair to say that it's supported when this support is non-material. And what's the benefit to the reader of Wikipedia? It doesn't even have featured content like FA-class transgender articles (Is there an automatically generated list of FA-class articles on transgender topics?), featured topics, featured images ... —Alalch E. 16:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:LGBTQ+ would need to step up and make that support a reality. I just think the project should be given a chance to do so. A notice of this deletion discussion hasn't even been posted on the project talk page. The quality issues aren't a reason to delete, because they would be resolved if the maintenance situation is improved.--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quality issues generally aren't a reason to delete an article provided that the subject of the article is a notable topic—it is that reason outside of the page which provides a reason for its existence. But with portals, we do not have known, generally accepted reasons for their existence, so we have nothing to go by except their quality vis-à-vis impact on the reader. —Alalch E. 22:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because there is no need and no reason for this portal that is obsolete in three ways:

The portal relies on subpages which are partial copies of the selected articles, and so are content forks which do not reflect changes in the articles. One effect is that deceased persons are listed as living persons. More modern architectures relying on transclusion exist and are in use, so there is no reason for this obsolescent architecture.
The portal is not being maintained, and so does not provide a current selection of articles. Being "sponsored" by a WikiProject is not the same as being maintained.
Portals have been obsolete since the start of Wikipedia and the implementation of portals as part of the Wikipedia architecture. Portals are no longer needed on the Internet because search engines can provide much of the original functionality of portals. Portals were never needed in a hypertext-based system such as Wikipedia where an overview of a subject is available by links, and Wikipedia also has categories

If there is no one who is available to modernize or re-architect the portal, that is a further indication that the portal is unmaintained.

This portal is being used more than most portals, which would warrant keeping it if it had a modern architecture for the premodern purpose of being a portal. In calendar 2024, there were an average of 76 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 4685 for the article. In calendar 2023, there were an average of 85 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 5682 for the article. More than 50 daily pageviews is high demand for a portal. Although portals are obsolete, there would be a reason to keep a portal that had a modern architecture. This one does not.

The Heymann criterion should be to reimplement the portal within five days. Otherwise it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation with an architecture that does not rely on content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Deletion review