Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag panic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Drag panic

The result was Keep. Per WP:SNOW there is no chance this discussion will arrive at any other outcome.‎ Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article describes social concerns about the exposure of drag to children as "hysteria," "moral panic," and "extremism." Regardless of whether one might be inclined to agree with such statements, there is not sufficient evidence to call one side of a very polarized political divide "hysterical." This article thus claims a seriously contested assertion to be fact, something which has a strong prohibition on it in WP:VOICE. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Félix An (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Fashion, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article describes a well-documented phenomenon involving opposition to drag. The nomination disputes the article title and characterization of the phenomenon, which is a valid discussion but not a reason to delete the entire page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the general theme of writing about "opposition to drag" or something along those lines could be done neutrally, though this would take such substantial rewriting that it may be better to start from scratch, or incorporate elements of this page into a "criticism" or similarly titled section on the article about drag. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking a position on whether the characterization should be changed. If it were to be changed, only the first sentence would need substantial rewriting; the rest of the article mostly describes protests and events. The word "panic" only appears 7 times in the article (besides the title) and only once outside the lead. If there is a consensus that the terms are non-neutral (the consensus doesn't exist now), what is wrong with renaming the article to, for example, "Protests against drag" and removing the terms in the first sentence? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of this AfD is Keep, I strongly agree with the Helpful Racoon's proposal, and I think a move discussion should be started to move the page to a more neutral name. However, I will still maintain my Delete !vote. Félix An (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but after a bit of thought I believe "Anti-drag movement" might be an appropriate title if "Drag panic" is found to be non-neutral. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as by above: subject is clearly notable, and arguments about article quality, POV, or title are irrelevant.

Also, consensus for the article name already exists on the talk page: Talk:Drag_panic#Move_to_"Criticism_of_drag". Complaints about that should follow the requested moves process, not the AFD process, and should be done there.

See the statement of Daniel Rigal in the linked discussion. Further discussion of this should be done at the talk page. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the name stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this way is sufficient evidence that it's reasonable to characterize it that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability, and WP:IDONTLIKEITis not a valid reason to delete, nor is WP:FALSEBALANCE, by claiming no on has proved it is not a threat, it is down to those who claim there is a threat to prove there is one. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep obviously notable topic. Skyshiftertalk 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even if the claims in the nomination were correct, which they are not, bias is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable. The hits in Google News and Scholar linked above are sufficient to demonstrate notability even before adding in synonyms. If there was a bias problem then that would be one to be fixed in editing, not in deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is clearly a Notable topic, and has good enough sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is pretty notable and it points out the opposition of drag, hence the name "drag panic" which is a moral panic. Obviously, the article is a bit opposed rather than neutral, but it doesn't mean the article should be up for deletion, it's just need a cleanup from various WikiProjects that are involved in it. Please know the editor is still new to this, remember it's a privilege to edit on Wikipedia. Now, for the name of article, @Félix An requested to rename the article to "criticism of drag" in which I disagreed, because no one else calls it that. Although, other editors from that discussion pointed out it's "overly broad" or "would be a completely different topic" since the article is about the opposition of drag. With the name not being suitable for the article, I do agree with @Helpful Raccoon's proposal to rename it "anti-drag movement". If the outcome is keep, it just need a cleanup and a name change so it doesn't be opposed and stays neutral. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: OP hasn't outlined convincing argument for deletion. Any problems outlined can be resolved with edits, if they exist. Topic clearly notable from looking at Google Scholar and media usage alone. Lewisguile (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that sometimes an article is so Broken that deletion is the only way to fix it (or to put it another way, there is nothing worth saving), but this is not one such article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is really disruptive and clearly "I don't like it." An old article may need improvement, but this one clearly passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seems to be notable judging by media citations, and even ongoing laws. Maybe there exist some responses/pro-advocacy to add some or more WP:UNDUE. Although it is part of a deeper ongoing moral panic, perhaps, it can be retitled to "Criticism of Drag", "Drag hysteria", "Anti-drag movements" or "Drag and social responses". Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This deletion attempt seems disruptive and driven by personal preference rather than objective criteria. I believe the article's content is factually sound. Even if minor revisions are needed, deletion is not the answer. Waqar💬 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough reliable sources to make this notable. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if there's such WP:REQUESTMOVE to a bland tone Anti-drag movements I would concur it too. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is clearly notable, not only for the number and quality of the sources, but also the fact that they document a phenomenon that is widespread enough that there are sources from many countries around the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is heading for a snow close. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.