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

Delia M. Sosa

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

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1)	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here	~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing.	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2)	Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Why not?	Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website	This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students.	This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release	This is a press release	This is a press release	There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece.	✘ No
Them	Seems independent to me	For sake of argument	There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's.	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	✘ No
MedPage Today	Why not?	Why not?	Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece.	✘ No
USA Today	USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL per WP:RSP	While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformare l'organizzazione dei luoghi di detenzione. Persone transgender e gender nonconforming tra diritti e identità

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

No sources in the article discuss this book, only a few citations with no discussion of the book. A search found no sources that help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Italy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sartre

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bibliographies. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the subject of a number of profiles including Las Vegas Weekly, Jezebel, and Paper. She's also discussed in several academic sources as seen from a Google Scholar search: [1]. I think there is enough to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, California, and Nevada. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Views on genital modification

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

POV-fork (or something fork) of Genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of $X" article for every article on $X, and per WP:NOPAGE such material is consolidated in single coherent places. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a necessary fork of genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of X" for every article on a subject matter. In this case, however, it comprised a majority of the article. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Genital modification and mutilation: Already has section that starts the article. Adding this information does not make Genital modification and mutilation to long. Demt1298 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think merge is appropriate as the first edit suggests this page came from that one in the first place. Thus there is nothing to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page is an undiscussed split of Genital modification and mutilation. The creator has attempted to cut information from that page and to copy it to this one. There is no WP:PAGESIZE justification for such a split. The controversial nature of the subject is likely to make this an unintended WP:POVFORK. Per WP:NOPAGE and per nom., this split should be reverted at both ends. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and restore content at the original article from which this was taken from. This was an undiscussed an unnecessary split. The page basically appears to be an arbitrary WP:POVFORK along the lines of WP:CRITS. Looks like it can probably be closed speedily per WP:SNOW clause. Raladic (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore content to Genital modification and mutilation. No redirect.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [2], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [3]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent

Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website works for me, so if it's not working for you, you can get it from Archive.org. I'll add some more links and references today. SASH is an active nonprofit working on sexual health, comparable in size and impact to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research TheoJarek (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of sexology organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding a study of sexual health professionals. They included SASH, the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR), the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), now known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS). Authors chose these organizations because they were notable and represented a range of professionals in sex research, education, and therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Sexuality TheoJarek (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Delete but that is not the situation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks pretty clear based on the scholarly references/citations from Google Scholar at over 300 alone. Also over 1650 references in Books is pretty significant. Noting that the old AfD from 2015 had scant participation and one of those was a banned sock puppeteer means that that AfD should have no relevance on the situation now. Raladic (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review