Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,541,109 edits
Line 16: Line 16:
==Articles for deletion==
==Articles for deletion==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_Men_Marry_Bitches}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cisgenderism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cisgenderism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disownment}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disownment}}

Revision as of 05:31, 11 December 2023

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
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:
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:

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality


Articles for deletion

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Men Marry Bitches

Why Men Marry Bitches (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)

After looking for sources to support this article for a book, I was able to find one review in Publishers Weekly, which is good. However, I only found one other review, which was from a questionable source. The author did go on the Today Show to discuss the book, but I think that has more to do with the first book, Why Men Love Bitches, than the notability of this book. I feel like notability of this book is on the line. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2023 (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.
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 keep‎. It seems like this discussion has resolved at least some confusion about how this topic is different than others. We should also expect more clarity on definitions from outside sources in the coming years. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgenderism

Cisgenderism (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)

Three reasons for nomination in AfD:

  • All of the sources I could find in my BEFORE and currently present in the article are WP:PRIMARY journal articles investigating the topic at hand.
  • This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity, trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [9]). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender).
  • The only and main secondary source:
Ansara, Y. Gavriel; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN 978-1-5443-9381-0.
was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology, one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [10]. You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality, Psychology of Women Section Review, Violence Against Women, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Transgender Studies Quarterly, Australasian Journal on Ageing, and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3/4 of those sources:
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science, in other words, fringe sources.
The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states:
Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174)
This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as:
In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996).
So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like:
Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge
How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"?
This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gish gallop. Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes. In the list of vote types presented there, it states: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g.
Sources discussing cisgenderism and cisnormativity
I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T.; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode:2021PLoSO..1653589R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253589. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 8294496. PMID 34288911. ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article, and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..."

"I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously"

You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity, which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV, does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts.
Additional sources
Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one).
This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles"

I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans. It reads like a personal essay. Dream Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary. Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding.
I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl, and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [12] [13] [14]
My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [15] and [16]. Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia, not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your answer does not cover:
  • WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up.
  • Example of WP:DICDEF. Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical)
  • I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE.
Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources.
By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – cisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity, with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice. While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender. So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into.

    That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO:

    "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

    And...

    "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."    — The Transhumanist   08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep !vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that.
  1. Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [17]; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [18]; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [19]. If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [20], just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [21] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [22]. I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
  2. This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all.
  3. The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE, which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist, not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD.
  4. WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more.
  5. WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion.

Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC. As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and transphobia: it matches the relationship between heterosexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them), this distinction is noted in other sources[23][24] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism.[25]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Last1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG, that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks, and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article.    — The Transhumanist   13:08, 17 December 2023 (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.
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 keep‎. Consensus exists to expand the article instead of deleting or draftifying. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 16:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disownment

Disownment (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)

Basically an extended DICDEF, topped off with a small detail sourced from a dead link. Could possibly be merged into a broader article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an authority on the field, and came here for information. This is a useful topic, so I think it should be kept. Yugan Talovich (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I believe this is an important topic that people should know about. 2607:9880:1628:20:65A4:8604:2232:262C (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion, it would be helpful if the changes to the article since nomination were assessed. It seems like this article has gone beyond a dictionary definition. Right now, I don't see support for Deletion but let's keep this discussion open another few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: and expand. The concept dates back to the earliest legal systems, and is covered by many inheritance law textbooks. The French language wiki has more about the relevant laws in France, Switzerland and Quebec, and the Japanese language wiki has useful information about the history and legal aspects in Japan. Also pinging @BD2412: for his expertise here. Owen× ☎ 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am no expert on disownment, but the concept exists legally, and goes beyond disinheritance (which basically means cutting someone out of a will) towards complete severance of familial legal obligations. Legally, disownment can also run both ways — a child can disown their parents through an effort to obtain legal emancipation. There has to be a mechanism, however. Standing up at Thanksgiving dinner and yelling "I disown you" may perform the function socially, but any legal sort of disownment would have to be accomplished through some kind of court proceeding. I'm sure that more can be found on that. BD2412 T 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article hasn't yet covered Quintillian's abdicatio or the laws trying to prevent disownment in Edo period Japan, I'm going to say that that this is a stub with scope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above JM (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (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.
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. Strength of arguments on specific policy carry the day here. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Jean

AfDs for this article:
Elsa Jean (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)

Article was deleted through AfD in January 2020. However, five sources have been added that were published since that time. Note, Elsa Jean is a former pornographic actress, so follow due diligence regarding NSFW subjects. Sources added since last AfD: 1) Twitter, 2) JoyNights, 3) Die-Screaming, 4) AVN, and 5) XBIZ. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just chiming in because I declined the G4 CSD tag. This version is significantly different to the one that was deleted at AfD back then. There may be 5 sources in the current iteration that have been published since the article was deleted, but the references used in this version of the article are very different, they were mostly profile pages on various sites, a couple of interviews, and an IMDB page. It also did not contain anywhere close to this level of detail and the award section only had 5 entries compared to the much larger table it has now.
I mention this because I don't think the old discussion has any bearing on this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yahoo Finance has an article with a by-line [26] about NFTs she "sold" (I guess is the verb to use?), and LADbible (which also has a by-line and doesn't seem that tabloid-ey) [27]. With the Fortune source (#9 in the article) and the rest, I think we're just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Yahoo Finance appears to be a reprint from Business Insider (or vice-versa), so I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussions of LADbible question its editorial oversight (factual reliability). As for the Business Insider article via Yahoo!, not only is is a primary source, it expresses the subject's perspective in the first person. WP:RSPS notes Insider not always marking syndicated content clearly. This instance reeks of crypto self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The new content may clear the G4 and A7 concerns of previous iterations of the article, but the low quality of the sources still cause it to fall short on notability. The new facts since the previous AfD deletion are additional porn awards/nominations and the line of NFTs. Secondary source coverage provided by the article and found in WP:BEFORE searching consists of self-published porn blogs, the usual award rosters, crypto blogs and garbage-tier tabloids. Still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is written in 15 languages, I think it should remain. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other stuff existing does not overcome a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Besides, many of the other versions are translations of the previously deleted version of the en.Wikipedia page. Other Wikipedia editions have their own guidelines for inclusion independent of the English Wikipedia. Existence there does not establish notability here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:ENT The awards and filmography are not sourced. Those 15 languages mentioned above look like they were recently added there, perhaps by the same editor who added it at English Wikipedia. WP:RSP Some checking needs to be done on the sourcing. You Tube and Twitter are not considered a reliable sources. Each one of those non-Engllish Wikipedia listings has this same image of the subject, which was only added to Commons on 30 May 2023. Perhaps we just have an enthusiastic editor at work there. — Maile (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually looking at random ones, that is not actually the case.
    I'm not even going to look at the other 12. No offense, but I think your hypothesis is not even close to correct. --GRuban (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Porn actors' notability is evaluated through WP:ENTERTAINER and since PORNBIO was deprecated, I don't think porn awards matter any longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Liz, are you performing an administrative function or are you giving an opinion? In any case, please note that WP:ANYBIO does not, actually, say "this does not apply to pornographic actors". --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban I can't speak for Liz, but this discussion may be worth reading. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Counterfeit Purses, thank you for linking the above. I had never seen that, and it's enlightening in some ways. I don't normally edit in areas where this subject matter would arise. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, the relisting was an administrative function, the comment about porn awards was just an observation that occurred to me reading over the comments. Porn awards use to matter for notability purposes but don't any longer, as far as I know. As for whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted, I have no opinion. If I did, I would have made a "vote". Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mushy Yank,
Who is Sapphire Howell and what does she have to do with this article? I don't see this person mentioned in this article so I'm not sure what connection they have to a Keep vote. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz,
Thank you for your concern.
They're the same person. and that's the name she uses in her new careeer (supposedly her real name) and that recent sources use. It was strangely removed from the intro, although sources on the page use it. The Harper's Bazaar cover and article use it, for example. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see an ANYBIO pass here, and I'm surprised that several of my colleagues above do. ANYBIO does not say anything about a notable award; it mentions a "well-known and significant award or honor". I'm willing to accept that an AVN award in principle qualifies for this; but if you look at AVN Awards, there are 56 individual awards handed out every year, and the ones Jean won don't appear to be among the most significant. I struggle to believe that the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is so significant that it can confer notability in the absence of GNG. The same applies to the other awards listed. Looking at the substance of the page, it's obvious that we're also struggling to write even a short biography; there are perhaps four sentences that are not prosified database entries. I suspect this is a TOOSOON situation; Jean appears to be only increasing in profile. But we don't have the sources to write a reasonable article, and the awards are not enough for me to support a stub via ANYBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2023 (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.
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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 'n Chicken

AfDs for this article:
Porn 'n Chicken (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 lasting notability after their fifteen minutes ended way back in 2001. Definitely fails WP:NFILM. Article has never had any viable third-party coverage of the club nor the movie since its expansion in 2005, with only Yale-related publications cited. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aside from the massive torrent of press that this received back in 2000-2001, it continues to be referred to in the major media. The most recent reference in the New York Times is from 2015. "Yale Graduate Who Promoted CrossFit Ventures Is Arrested," New York Times, 21 May 2015:

″While at Yale, Mr. Newman gained a bit of notoriety for being a founding member of a group that called itself “Porn ‘N Chicken” and claimed to get together on Friday nights to watch pornographic movies and eat fried chicken. The group also announced plans to make a pornographic film of its own among the Yale library stacks featuring real students. The movie was never made, but Comedy Central made a cable television movie in 2002 based on the incident.

Mr. Newman wrote about his involvement with “Porn ‘N Chicken” on the blog on his website, which includes quotes from various news articles over the last decade that have called him a “Silicon Valley pro” and an “Internet elder statesmen.”

In a few seconds of checking I also see a 2007 discussion by ABC News. "Please Check Your Clothes at the Door," ABC News, 10 January 2007: "Also in the late 1990s, a secret society called "Porn 'n Chicken," met together to watch pornographic movies while eating fried chicken in the nude, sources tell ABCNEWS.com."

Porn 'n' Chicken, however ridiculous, probably has more notable references than half the pages on Wikipedia.Uucp (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2023 (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.
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 keep‎ per improvements to page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 04:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander Hess

Scott Alexander Hess (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)

Disputed draftification, which is why it is now at AfD. I am not persuaded he passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (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.
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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sandler (costume wearer)

Adam Sandler (costume wearer) (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)

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable. I doubt that anyone would even come to here if it was for him sharing the name of a very famous actor. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a lean towards keep at the moment, but the delete votes have valid arguments and this discussion could benefit from a bit of extra time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2023 (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.

Categories, Templates, Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sexuality_and_gender&oldid=1189335464"