Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginity fraud

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. Some evidence has been provided that reliable sources have examined the perception of fraudulent claims of virginity, and an article may conceivably be written using those; as most other !votes make clear, though, this article is framed very differently, and runs foul of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in its entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginity fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is basically original research with elements of WP:ATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. If there's anything to be said about the subject of cheating on a "virginity" test, we can say it at virginity test, where we also explain how they are invasive, based on bad biology, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The article should be merged with virginity test instead of deleting it, it should be a section there. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Virginity test—it's not that there's no place for some of this material, but certainly not in a standalone article, not like this. Perhaps the singular incident described is actually notable enough for its own article, but that'd be for later. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a disgusting article. The very premise is misogynist in terms of its framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not redirect to virginity test. For one, the term "virginity fraud" is a rather WP:POVTITLE. Secondly "virginity fraud" can mean many things. For example, this TED talk is called "virginity fraud" and its really about myths about the hymen. So we might not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "virginity fraud".VR _talk 16:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, and unfortunately, the way the article is currently written, it elaborates on the term as a societal problem rooted in misogyny without even mentioning prejudice against or the commodification of women. The article is junk as is. If discussion of the subject needs to exist anywhere, it is only as a minor chapter in the long and sordid history of virginity testing and violence against women. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable topic. For example, see Female Fraud: Counterfeit Maidenheads in the Eighteenth Century which starts "Falsified Virginity: a recurring object of representation and concern in eighteenth-century Britain..." and Counterfeiting the Loss of Virginity... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 17 October 2021 (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.