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[edit]

Gender Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. References are routine news reports about individual initiates when it was inaugurated. The organization itself lacks sufficient coverage. Government organization has no inherent notability, WP:ORGSIG. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Pax[edit]

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

Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page Six and Daily Star articles, which aren't a RS, are all I can pull up. Lack of sourcing for this individual. The AVN and Xbiz articles are just lists of winners. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 12 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 Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Until the article can be expanded, I wouldn't object to a redirect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Im not fundamentally opposed to a redirect. , Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A won-an-award-but-independent-rs-coverage-is-nil porn bio. No claim of passing WP:BASIC and insufficient RS support for passing WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Nair[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards Floralbergamot (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the subject has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Based on the contents of the article, such as using the subject's personal website as a source numerous times and directing the reader to articles archived on the subject's personal website, it was possibly created as a result of self-promotion. Floralbergamot (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite notable activist, coverage is mostly in articles she's written, or stuff about spats she's having with one person or another...[1]. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney_Wright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Whitney Wright

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

Actor that fails to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ENT: Does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor have they made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The only reliable secondary source about the subject relates to how this pornographic actor went to Iran, posted some photos on social media, and has cause a social media controversy online. This doesn't establish notability as an entertainer, and is exclusively be tied to a single event that is largely unrelated to the subject's profession as an entertainer. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:41, 10 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 Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). However the torrent of coverage W. Wright received for her political opinions shows her notability as porn actress is recognised outside WP and outside industry/adult coverage. That's why I think the article could be retained. NB-Coverage is international and includes reliable media, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Euronews, Hindustan Times, and so on. Despite this being limited in time, my !vote is based on the fact that it confirms her more general notability (since PORNBIO has been "cancelled"). (Note: I am the one who DPDd the page- same nominator, as I didn't judge deletion uncontroversial). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Israel, and Palestine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG with the Guardian and the AP source. Coverage in a few different news sources [2] as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage of her persists as she visits Syria: [3] Aintabli (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Restored the section on her career that was missing to make the article complete. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They've gotten a lot of press for their political views, not just for their work in the adult industry. This shows they're notable outside of that world. Plus, they've been covered by major news outlets like The Guardian and Al Jazeera. That kind of coverage is pretty significant. Waqar💬 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that the nominator tried to delete this article through PROD is a disgrace. PROD should ONLY be used when no opposition to deletion is expected. In this discussion I see not even one person who supports delete. gidonb (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion[edit]

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Deletion review[edit]