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

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]

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]

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]

Lily Phillips

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

BLP of an OnlyFans model whose claim to fame is having sex with 100 men. Coverage is all from within the past week or so and largely consists of deprecated sources and low-quality tabloids. Fails WP:N, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would move it to draft space then and see if she gets more coverage.

I only made this page since I read about her and saw that there was a German article about her but not an English one. Laura240406 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A draft already exists at Draft:Lily Phillips. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay then I'm also for a deletion

(btw the German Wikipedia's quality standards seem to be a lot worse than the English one's) Laura240406 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, utterly non-notable other than this event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see my comment Laura240406 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a draft that covers the main points and uses more reliable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the sources currently used in the draft are in yellow and red at WP:UPSD. I removed the three it highlighted in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is only notable for one event and there is a lack of reliable sources even regarding the sole reason for notability. Svenska356 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been significantly improved by User:Launchballer and passes WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. Tayce Widdrington (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tayce Widdrington and WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 09:15, 7 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]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus on whether or not the existing sources are sufficient and now there is a suggestion to Redirect or Merge that needs to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both High on Films and Film Carnage is not reliable as they publish almost anything and the writers have no prior journalism experience! But Film Threat is reliable and BRWC is per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Joel Fisher has a BA in Writing + published work for other decent film review sites. Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline pass Bengele (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something looks rather dodgy about this vote.

The user has emerged from 6 almost entirely inactive years to make virtually their first edits since they were 14 years old (according to their user page). This results in them arriving at a finely balanced AfD for a rather obscure film, the first time they have participated in an AfD. Given the history of the user who created this article (a promo SPA who has recently been indef blocked) there must surely be plausible concerns that some form of off-wiki canvassing has occurred. Axad12 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak merge (nominator) I've taken a look through everyone's arguments, my overall opinion hasn't really changed as only one source is uncontroversially accepted as meeting criteria, whilst a second is questionable ("okayish") and the others don't pass muster per Erik's and Axad12's earlier comments.

The director's newly created article has been questioned as having similar sourcing/notability problems as this one - one single interview then swathes of film reviews.

It's also a bit concerning re. notability that the article was only created as a response to this AFD, not because of the inherent notability of the director himself (BTW I can see that an RS tag was added but then removed a few hours later from Alexander's article so I could be misunderstanding this).

If this is merged then I presume we'd need to include similar sections for all his other films, I'm happy to work on doing that if it happens. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, film reviews have always been an acceptable way of establishing notability for film directors. It's really no different than using book reviews to establish notability for an author. Their work received coverage in RS, so it's a sign of notability.

As for the topic of creating articles in response to an AfD, this is pretty common on Wikipedia. Someone nominates an article with shaky notability, but in the process someone notices that the main parent topic (in this case a director) has a stronger or even obvious case for notability. There's nothing wrong with creating an article on that main parent topic. Not only does this give Wikipedia a place to cover the sub-topic in a way that might not have otherwise been possible, but I've personally found that it tends to deter people from creating or re-creating articles on topics with shakier notability. I know that there are people out there with agendas, but not every article re-creation is done because of paid editing or similar. (Not that you were accusing me of that, just that I know that's a common reason some articles are re-created.) In this specific situation I saw that the director had received coverage for two of his other films, so I thought that a good compromise might be to create the director's article. The notability on this one is shaky, but with the director's article we have a way of ensuring that we have some coverage of the movie without focusing specifically on it.

However while I'm on the topic of the director article, I am a bit dismayed that someone went and cleaned out the filmography section and reduced it to just two movies. I can't help but feel like this was done as a way to emphasize how non-notable they felt the director was, particularly after the notability tag was removed. Their justification was a lack of sourcing for the filmography section. I would shrug that off, except that they also removed Sex, Love, Misery - which was sourced in the biography section - I'd just neglected to link the source to the filmography section - something that they themselves could have done rather than remove it. In any case, I've added sources for the short films, a primary and non-primary one. The non-primary one looks to be usable enough - other pages use it and it's also been used as a source in some academic/scholarly books like this and this.

I normally wouldn't go into so much depth about a separate article except that this is kind of related to the AfD. I just want to give a word of caution since I am worried about people being so bent on deletion that they go overboard. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, thank you for adding the relevant sourcing to the Shannon Alexander article, which I think we both agree was required. I trust that you also agree with my other removal (re: Shannon Alexander not being "known for" making documentaries). My apologies if I have caused you any dismay.

Incidentally, I'm not bent on deletion of the Shannon Alexander article, I simply added a tag to it to say that the article may not have been sufficiently notable. I added that tag to invite comment from other users. If I had been bent on deletion there are several courses of action that I might have taken, e.g. referring the article to AfD, PRODding it, or requesting speedy deletion under A7. Since I did none of those things hopefully it is self-evident that I am not bent on deletion but simply wished to raise a legitimate concern about the potential notability.

For the record, I broadly agree with you that an article about Shannon Alexander is, per se, more notable than the articles about the individual films - and in that regard I'm very happy to thank you for going to the trouble of setting up that article.

Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours, Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I am sorry that I assumed any bad faith on your part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

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

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb

. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS

. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview

. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention

. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview

. Instagram is worthless

. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle

. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it

. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV

. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That Cartoon Brew discussion doesn't look like an unambiguous endorsement of that website's reliability to me... Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lee Roy Myers. JoelleJay's breakdown of the sources looks correct. The Hollywood Reporter article is the best source right now. Everything else is primary or marginally unreliable at best, not enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 23:41, 5 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]

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([3] [4] [5] [6]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 [7], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [8].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review