Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 {{Gpedia: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 Gpedia'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

Jennifer Krum

Jennifer Krum (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The subject won a beauty contest for amputees sponsored by Howard Stern and subsequently appeared on the Playboy website. I found one article about her in the gossip section of the New York Daily News [1] and no other indication of WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG notability. Cheers, gnu57 17:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ze'ev Smason

Ze'ev Smason (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BISHOPS or be notable outside of a child molestation case by a volunteer at the congregation. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Tawny Roberts

Tawny Roberts (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage found besides trivial mentions and promotional adult-industry award sources. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, sailor

Hello, sailor (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A short definition of a neologism, and the primary reference of notability is Hello Sailor (novel), which can just stand on its own. ZimZalaBim talk 20:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It used to be longer... Kind regards, Grueslayer 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Whatever else may be wrong with this article it is certainly not about a neologism. This was a commonplace phrase when I was growing up in the 1960s and had nothing to do with any novel. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Philip Proudfoot

Philip Proudfoot (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 · NYT · WP Library)

WP:BLP of a minor party leader, who is not reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #9. Gpedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to the leader of every political party, especially those who are leaders of parties lacking political representation or which have never contested elections. The primary sources about him largely concern the Northern Independence Party rather than Proudfoot directly, his personal twitter account, and the two sources which directly interview him are not enough to establish notability. Good material for the NIP page, but not enough for a stand-alone page on Mr Proudfoot himself. BitterGiant (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. While the party has received independent coverage in reliable sources, he hasn't and has not even stood as a candidate for the party. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep there are two profiles of Proudfoot - one in The Northern Echo, one in the National World (possibly less reliable) - which probably puts this over the line for NPOL or GNG. There is a profile of Proudfoot in The London Economic although for some reason that website has been blacklisted by WP - never heard of this site so feel free to disregard. A story about Proudfoot was published in The Jewish Chronicle. Other sources which are mainly about NIP, have big sections speaking about Proudfoot and his life: New Statesman #1, New Statesman #2, The Independent, The National. Finally there are a couple of passing references in regard to his academic work: [2] [3] [4]. If deleted, I am almost certain it will be recreated in a year or so. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Brittany Binger

Brittany Binger (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment if it's the same person, she could be included in the Grady Sizemore article, a person with her name married Mr. Sizemore. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • We do not have a personal life section on Mr. Sizemore at present. While he may have married this this Ms. Binger, if all the evidence we have for that "is a person with this same name", instead of "we have a source that says Mr. Sizemore married a woman who had been photographed professionally and included in published magazines", or other wording to indicate a connection other than the same name, we should not go based just on the same name, because if we do we might be creating the Frankenstein's Monster article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a Playmate of the Month is notable in modeling. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    Quite incorrect. Only 3 of the 12 listed in the "Playboy Playmates of 2007" template on her page have articles, and 1 (Tamara Sky) should be an easy deletion next. Being a Playmate may have been a criteria of the old WP:PORNBIO notability guide, but that was deleted ages ago. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable pinup girl, nothing but the Playboy spread and some gossip mags. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rizi Timane

Rizi Timane (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Refs are either primary, SPS, shops or non-RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Arpad Miklos

Arpad Miklos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The only sources from reputable sites (1, 2) only really mention his suicide. The other sources are just publicity. Subject doesn't seem notable to me. Ficaia (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This AfD debate was not added to the daily log. It is now listed on Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 12. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a lot of coverage, per the usual with porn peformers, but there are non-porn sources like this Out article (1) that assert notability in his field, both as a porn star and escort, and had an unusually long career for gay porn star standards. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Very weak delete: I know this isn't a strongly policy-based argument, hence the "very weak", but: if all an article has for WP:RS is sources that describe the subject's death by suicide... I think we should delete this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not have adeaquate sourcing. There is no real coverage of him before his death, and the coverage of his death is not of such a large level that it justifies an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I forgot to mention there are a few other instances of Miklos getting relatively minor mainstream press coverage in multiple outlets for appearing on a line of beach towels for American Apparel in 2010 and when he appeared in Perfume Genius music video for his song "Hood" in 2012. A number of those can be found via google search. So there is more than just coverage of his suicide (albeit not great), and as I mentioned in my first post, there are assertions he was a notable person in his field. Mainstream coverage on porn stars is usually very superficial in nature, so you can't expect a lengthy write up on his life and career. I'm not sure this AFD will get much more participation after almost three weeks now and little discussion. I suspect most people who've seen it don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Also Miklos has been deceased for a number of years now, so there are no BLP issues to contend with. I'll go ahead and vote Keep while I'm at it. Not my strongest AFD argument, but I think there's enough reasoning in my arguments to justify my vote. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Kendra Sunderland

Kendra Sunderland (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 · NYT · WP Library)

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment as creator You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. PamD 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep by significant coverage in [5],

[6] and [7], notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Not sure RSP accurately reflects the conclusion at [RSN which said the magazine is generally reliable, so stuff published in the site is not covered by that. Is your source printed or online? Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident.[8][9] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      • No that's not what low-profile means. Someone who actively seeks publicity, as Sunderland does, is not low-profile regardless of whether or not she is notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Excuse but doing porn does not automatically make you publicity seeker. That’s ridiculous and a total distortion of how this works. Being outed involuntarily cannot create an assumption that you must get a scarlet letter just because you work in porn. If that hadn’t of happened we wouldn’t have this article at all as she is otherwise not notable and no more attention seeking than any other porn performer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
          Acting in Hollywood makes you high-profile but acting in pornographic movies means you've been outed? One is a publicity seeker if they're doing high-profile high-visibility work, doing interviews on that work, attending promotional events as the 'line-up' in the event, etc... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Such blending is called a career. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per ProcrastinatingReader. Seems to meet the necessary bars. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete' utterly trivial. The notability is one event. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pawnkingthree Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. WP:BLP1E that does rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two pages in the peer reviewed Feminist Media Studies paper here. Besides the library coverage ([11], [12], [13], [14]) There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Pikavoom Talk 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Lets look at this shall we. The first lot of sources all relate to the library incident and later coverage is in the context of amateur porn or caming making the point that this is flash in the pan 1E territory without enduring independent coverage. So lets look at the evidence of enduring coverage cited; which is hardly making a case. Newsweek interview about caming, mens health? Sensational interview and quotes about dirty talk, indian express, reprint w/o a byline from a Daily Mail article, pornstar makeup FFS and tabloids like Daily Star & NY Post. None of this is an arguable case that there is enduring coverage so proving the 1E case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
You left out the part where the Feminist Studies journal article was published 2 years after the incident in your mistaken interpretation of BLP1E. Enduring independent coverage. You also have a mistaken understanding of what secondary vs. primary means in dismissing the Newsweek article as an interview. Reporters are allowed to interview people to write a story. This wasn't a transcript of a q&a here. Arguing that it's the same is dishonest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - Sufficient sources meet WP:GNG. Definitely not WP:BLP1E as she has coverage for more than the single event. Reliable sources exist. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:GNG, fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so the initial independent news coverage about the library incident (i.e. not churnalism, and not information directly from her, e.g. as in tabloid-style clickbait publications such as post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK) does not contribute much to notability. And per reliable sources, she was a WP:VICTIM because her video was uploaded to multiple websites without her consent, so the article should exist only if consistent with Gpedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, [she] had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The available sources do not show the event is "well-documented" or "historic", and her inclusion in two and a half paragraphs at the beginning of a Feminist Media Studies article is not enough to support "historic significance", while later tabloid-style promotional coverage helps emphasize the lack of historic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The video was uploaded by a stranger without consent yet she consented to start a career in pornography after that. If she was a random person, it just would not be the same story. I mean, she still calls herself KSLibraryGirl. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
But WP:ENTERTAINER notability also does not appear supported - the criteria that may have applied, i.e. the "cult" following, has been deprecated. Feminist Media Studies comments, "the case of Kendra Sunderland is also recognizable as an increasingly ordinary narrative about working on the edges of mainstream cultural industries," so there does not appear to be objective support for unique or innovative contributions. This article reminds me of a concept I attribute to DGG, which is essentially when insufficient independent and reliable support for notability exists, we are typically left with promotional content, and based on the type and quality of the sources, this appears to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
There's something else I often say, that in some forms of entertainment, there can be very little difference between promotional and non-promotional content. The manner of ever good descriptive writing is not always distinguishable. If we completely eliminated promotional content in some subfields of entertainment we'd have no articles on current performers. I've withdrawn my delete--I'm undecided. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories, Templates, Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FSexuality_and_gender">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sexuality_and_gender&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>