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

Verónica Rodríguez

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Venezuela. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and has either won or been nominated to several awards in the industry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @NoonIcarus: Can you specify what in the article you think constitutes reporting in reliable sources "enough coverage to meet WP:GNG"? As far as I am aware, we do not count nominations towards industry awards towards notability, and the single "win" indicated in the article is not for any of the major industry awards. BD2412 T 00:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2], to give some examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of intersex Olympians

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

Redirected by Kingsif but I think this article is well written and should be kept. But merge is also possible. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Olympics. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fail to see how this meets WP:NLIST. Saying that this can't be at AfD due to copyright is incorrect. AfD can decide to redirect a page as an alternative to deletion. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am slightly confused for the rationale of @Kingsif for how the new article Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games came to be if it's largely a copy of this current article with a new title and slight expansion - it seems more like the article Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games should never have had this list copied over there and that list content moved back into this article here. I see that it was mentioned at Talk:List of intersex Olympians#New discussion on how to present article - but didn't actually see any consensus to just move this list here to over there. The only consensus I saw there was to mention controversial cases there, not to have this entire list of athletes in it, which arguably doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with Sex verification.

In any case, AfD for this article here is wrong since we can't delete this article here, given that it serves as the history for the other article per our WP:COPYRIGHT rules for page history.

So I think reading that linked discussion, keeping this stand-alone list article separate and moving the list content back out of that other article and just linking it back to this list article would be more appropriate per WP:PRECISE. Raladic (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRECISE is a policy on article titling, not about content. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you read to the end of that discussion, there was agreement for convert the article [List of intersex Olympians] to be about sex verification and include a list of cases. Which is what happened - you’ll see the rationale at the talkpage is largely about how the content is framed, and at least one user has already appreciated the change. Besides that, there have been, last year and this year, users concerned that a contextless list is vulnerable to readers misunderstanding and/or malicious editors vandalising. Of course, you’re allowed the opinion that the list is better standalone…

I’m not sure why the nominator here jumped to an AfD instead of asking about the decision to redirect — and then, if they disagreed, starting or joining talkpage discussion. But I would encourage you (and the nom, and everyone else) to join talkpage discussion. As the main maintainer of the article(s), I’m trying my best to get users involved in discussion aiming at improvements, and then implementing improvements, because it’s a subject that can’t really be left unmaintained. The more participation and different views (which can come together to find a middle ground that may be ideal), the better. Kingsif (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted This was part of my thinking to convert the article to be about sex verification and include a list of cases meaning the list moved over there would be a list of specific cases, not the entirely of the list of any intersex athlete. Raladic (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! Still, "convert[ing] the article" is pretty unambiguously indicating that List of intersex Olympians as it was, would cease to exist, which was agreed. If you have more thoughts on how the subject should be presented, please let me know Kingsif (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly pointed out, I wasn't part of the original discussion, so I only have my retroactive eye to look at it.

I still believe that the new article that does have the good expanded scope of discussing sex verification at the Olympics involving intersex athletes as an article and is very worthwhile, but I could see it more as a WP:SPLIT of the original list article and both could co-exist with the new Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games talking more about the context you already expanded and talking about notably cases of sex verification involving intersex athletes (such as there being contention or so), while the List of intersex Olympians could continue to exist as a historic record of all notable intersex athletes at the Olympics, which is why I invoked WP:PRECISE earlier, as I'd believe if someone were to search for such a list, they would more likely expect it to be at such a title and may be confused why it is intermingled with sex verification that has more scope beyond that.

But that being said, if the community arrives at a consensus that the merge is preferred (now that this has gotten more attention via the AfD, since you called out that it hadn't gotten much participation earlier, which is arguably how I came across it through one of the Wikiproject notification of the AfD), then I won't stand in the way of it. In any case, thank you for your helpful work on both articles :) Raladic (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games: Appears to fail WP:NLIST. Article can be redirected to preserve edit history. TarnishedPath^talk 06:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- pace User:TarnishedPath, I think this does meet WP:NLIST: searching "intersex Olympic athletes" into Google comes up with a whole range of sources where intersex athletes are discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is the bar set by NLIST. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, per WP:NLIST "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. The notability of a list/group/set is not based on the notability of its members. In order for a list to be notable we must be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources, which are independent from the subject which discuss the list/group/set in depth. I couldn't find that when I conducted searches. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there are many good sources that discuss intersex athletes as a group or category. See for instance this book, largely on the topic, this Guardian article (on the topic of intersex athletes, inspired by Caster Semenya), extensive discussion in Foreign Policy here, in Sports Med Open here. Per NLIST, it is not required that those sources should list intersex athletes, or that any given member of our list should be discussed in them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was discussed at the talkpage beforehand. Given that there is minimal attention there - despite notifying related talk pages - the three person consensus seemed actionable. But yeah, don't know why the nom and another !vote don't know why it was redirected (and would love everyone here to be involved with discussions in future!).
WRT the nom's concerns, the list still exists at the target of the redirect, and the prose content has been merged there. You could effectively consider it a page title move if concerned about losing content (not done as a page move because of incorporating prose from other articles, too) - there was agreement that presenting the list with more context would be beneficial to reader understanding. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, it's fully covered there, and there seems no proper reason for having this as a separate article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Folks, let's not have two articles on the same topic. Yes, articles are allowed to have lists in them and list pages are allowed to have prose sections, they don't have to have be separate. Including the list in the new article makes the most sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a related note, I would like to ask nominator @MikutoH: why they created Intersex people in sports as itself a redirect to List of intersex Olympians? Those are different topics and if the former should redirect to anything, Sex verification in sports is a more apt target. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Darby Lloyd Rains

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least three significant roles in notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (Added a few sources, more sources exist).[reply]
Can you list the films and roles please

And the sources added? Ta Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page, check page history and the link "edits since nomination" on this page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except the nom's concerns have been addressed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously disagrees with your assertion. You stated she had 3 significant roles in notable films. What were they? The Wp:onus is on you to show what they are here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Obviously’? So the page still has no source? OK. I will assume good faith then. As for the rest of your comment, unless you are joking (it’s rather funny), I will assume good faith too: again, just read the page. You need to click on the title of the article on top of this page. I’m not going to copy paste the whole page here. And, by the way, what did you find during your BEFORE? Also, during the 1st AfD, the page was not ’allowed on technical sng pass’ but with a reference to (ANY)BIO (no technical mention of PORNBIO) and with a mention of ’definitely some claims to notability’. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Lloyd Rains also clearly meets the requirements for the notability of actors for another reason: her prolific and noted contributions to the field; and probably passes the threshold for general notability requirements given the amount of ’’multiple independent sources" mentioning her importance in the said field, her roles and performances..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review