Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sexuality and gender.
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:
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]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[edit]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. VRXCES (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. VRXCES (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper[edit]

Saugeen Stripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT - none of the sources in the external links are still functional. It does not appear to be a notable event. Given the last AfD occurred in 2006 (result was no consensus) it is appropriate for the question of notability to be tested again. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay.co.nz[edit]

Gay.co.nz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstrated notability. In a web search and investigation of available newspapers, only two potential sources were found: a survey output which did not discuss the website, but did include it in a list of websites when asking gay men about their use of various websites (PDF), and a guide book with only the line “Provides travel information aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual visitors, and vets businesses for standards of service and hospitality.” (see in book search: [1]). Personally, I do not see this as sufficient to meet “significant coverage”. For comparison, a similar site, gaynz.com, did at some point at least gain coverage in NZ media: [2] — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mahtab Utsha[edit]

Asif Mahtab Utsha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very poorly sourced. The photos and content suggest a conflict of interest. It should be deleted for the lack of notability and verifiable sources. Many tangentially linked sources are gathered to create a wall of references, but none cover the subject in-depth, which is needed to prove notability. The subject has no claims of significance and does not hold any office that would confer automatic notability. There is one event coverage of his contract not being renewed at a private university allegedly over homophobic and transphobic comments, which generated some coverage but would fall under Wikipedia:Oneevent. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Education, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person in question is one of the most searched person in Bangladesh. He is covered in almost all the mainstream media and the links of those media is referred. The pictures in question can easily be collected from his page and should serve as further evidence. And therefore, to suggest the 'photos' suggest a conflict of interest is not true.
    Given the importance and relevance of this figure in Bangladesh, I recommend the article to stay. Nafisa06 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Popularity is not the same as notable. Let us do a source review of the 78 sources present. Source 1: One line mentions the subject. Source 2 about his contract not being renewed at a private university and mentions the subject's transphobic comments. Source 3 and 4 have one line about him. Source 5 is about a University English club speaking competition in which the subject came third. Source 6 does not mention the subject despite it being used to claim subject co-authored booklet. Source 7 is a YouTube video. Source 8, an academic article written by the subject in the Philosophy and Progress journal, could not find an impact factor. Sources 9 to 28 does not mention the subject. Source 29 is a YouTube video blog. Sources 30 to 34 do not mention the subject. Source 35, YouTube video of a talkshow. Source 36 is a YouTube video of an interview with the subject. Source 37 is about subject's contract not being renewed. Source 38 is a YouTube video. Source 39 is a non-reliable source about the subject of tearing a high school literature book for featuring a story about a transwoman. Source 40 is a news report on YouTube. Source 41 is a critical opinion piece criticising the subject for his transphobic and homophobic comments. Source 42 has one line about the subject. Source 43 is a news report on his termination. Source 44 is a news article about a anti-LGBTQ rally calling for subjects reinstatement. Source 45 is not a reliable source. Source 46 is a news article about his termination. Sources 47 and 48 are about his termination. Source 49 is a duplication of source 3. Sources 50 to 62 do not mention the subject. Source 63 is a news report about the street protest against Israel, in which the subject was one of the speakers. Sources 64 to 70 do not mention the subject. Source 72 triggered my anti-virus. Sources 73 to 75 do not mention the subject. Source 76 is a Facebook post by subject. Sources 77 to 78 do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- 43 out of 78 sources, more than half, do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A stack of sources can be found in this article, but the sources have not written independently about the individual and most of the sources do not even trace the individual's name. Imitation of WP:NOTEBOMB. Ontor22 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kataxenna Kova[edit]

Kataxenna Kova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of material previously deleted and salted at Kataxenna/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kataxenna * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics without pain: promotional interviews such as this or this; advertorials, such as this; typical listings in models' listings, e.g. this one (all this bandwidth crop amounts to is to verify our subject is indeed a model); a news item, from a website called BLURB, about a book that, among many other models contains pics of our subject; typical announcements of events in local media, e.g. here; and so much more of the same. There is truly nothing out there. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal[edit]

2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created with substantial portions directly copied without attribution from Philip Schofield. It's not clear that this needs its own page, as the relevant material is included in context on the Philip Schofield article. Given the recency of the article creation, it can be safely deleted without too much concern about external links or external search engines. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:29, 17 April 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.

Proposed deletions[edit]