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

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]

Gender and Trade Initiative

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

This NGO fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dependent solely on the lone primary source . The term "Gender and Trade" might be a term used in India, but it makes no sense on this end. Why are they seemingly locked together as one? — Maile (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah L. Turbiville

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

A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Texas. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Sexuality and gender, England, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an event-specific page. The event seems to pass WP:NCRIME guidelines, with in-depth coverage from reliable local and national news sources like CNN and NYT. While the person is not notable, I see no reason why the information about the event can't be kept. Jordano^5³ 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the first article listed to be the best, as it has more instances of specific events and incidents than the others. Fitting in this story would likely be easiest there. Jordano^5³ 06:30, 23 December 2024 (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 ([1] [2] [3] [4]) 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]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first three sources in Bengali [currently notes 1; 2 & 4] are apparently addressing her career directly, though... -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Yes, I agree. The first two Bengali sources were significant, but they were just one-time mentions, not sustained coverage. even if you search "জেজমিন" "যায় যায় দিন" or "জেজমিন" "যুগান্তর" will result zero. Daily Fulki, on the other hand, isn't an established or notable publication in Bangladesh, making its coverage less reliable for notability assessment. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 08:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Today, I found an older AfD from 2011 with a result of delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazmin. Due to the mentioning surname, it wasn’t automatically linked to this discussion. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 10:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was 13 years ago, though. -Mushy Yank. 12:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the 2 reliable sources and a half in Bengali, may I suggest a merge into Pornography in Bangladesh mentioning in a section People that she was the first Bangladeshi-born pornographic actress and whatever material other users judge suitable for a merge? -Mushy Yank. 12:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a solution, maybe. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 08:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given there was a prior AFD on this article subject, Soft Deletion isnot an option. Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per discussion. Mehedi Abedin 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Brown (pregnant man)

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

I feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. This article is barely a stub, and effectively only says "this exists." WP:BLP1E is absolutely relevant, there's nothing else this article could expand to with the current coverage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article, which now includes a much wider range of sources, and a review of their book, and other work Lajmmoore (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/s to address BLP1E, I think the book, and more recent coverage of them shifts the article away from "notable for one event". also, i wonder if the article name should change - rather than (pregnant man) perhaps (activist) or (author) - as he's not pregnant now! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this resolves the BLP1E issue. He is entirely known for this one event in his life. That's it. Publishing his own book does not alleviate the fact that all the sourcing is about this one aspect of his life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:BLP1E. Astaire (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep he had international coverage: [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]. LIrala (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" does not save this from being a WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all sources are about the pregnancy.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, no evidence of high-profile activities outside of the pregnancy.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, the chance that a single pregnancy is significant enough to deserve its own article is slim to none. Astaire (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Astaire - while most sources are related the Glamour cover feature - this one is about the book and the Manchester Evening News is a more recent interview, so not quite all Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is about the pregnancy, and the Manchester Evening News interview is also largely about the pregnancy (as well as a modeling campaign which happened because of the pregnancy). Astaire (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I do remember the famous magazine cover. There has only been one news article published about him since he gave birth. I'm not sure that's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 articles from around the world linked in the article and in here. Will add from these. --Shelter3 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have probably voted keep but WP:BLP1E is pretty clear --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown is an activist and a social worker and not only had a child while a man but wrote two books. Agree with Lajmmoore, the article name should change to (activist) so WP:BLP1E will no longer be an issue: Brown continues to be active for trans rights and the queer community in a country that's slower on their rights than the U.S. even though they have universal health care. Glamour UK interviewer even said in June 2023 "In the UK, there's a lot of transphobia at the moment" --Shelter3 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelter3: you voted twice --FMSky (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second was a response to you really. Not sure how I would've updated my first vote. Don't assume the worst! Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this comment speaks to notability as defined by Wikipedia. There are thousands of people who are activists, social workers, or authors who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. To overcome the WP:BLP1E issue, we need reliable sources with significant coverage in a context beyond the pregnancy. Astaire (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment just a reminder that merge is also a possible outcome, as outlined at WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Lajmmoore (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. Could you do that or another editor? Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would require identifying a target article to merge into, and proposing that as an alternative to deletion. Frankly, I cannot think of a valid merge target. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
their partners article could work Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The changes to the article since nomination has shown continued coverage through this year. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "continued coverage" is still only about his pregnancy. That doesn't fix the BLP1E problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [10], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any news coverage is from June 2023, then zero coverage... Could maybe redirect to an article about the cover itself, that has coverage. This individual isn't... Some discussion in religious media [11], showing some critical analysis, but it's all from June 2023. Nothing has happened since. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct to say there is "zero coverage" outside 2023, there are articles on his book and more recent career from 2024 (references 6 and 11) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. All the sources provided are about the subject's pregnancy, and there's no evidence of high-profile activities outside said pregnancy.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bailey J Mills - his partner is notable and I think much of Brown's article could be re-worked into a longer personal life section Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge so no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review