Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (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)

Created after a page move. According to WP:D2D "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.". There is only one Wikipedia article with this wording: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and that page includes the two other links on this "disambiguation" page making this WP:CFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. Anyone searching for Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations will find that same information on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations therefore the page should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, the page which was renamed from Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: since there seems to be a misunderstanding, 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is not only about one set of allegations (1993), there is a lengthy section there about further allegations with links to all articles on Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually ever redirect to templates like that? I've never seen that done before. Popcornfud (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw disambiguation used the way you want to use it here, for articles with titles not sharing even one word or at least the meaning of the word in the disambiguation page's title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_(disambiguation) Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to a template? Not a good idea in my opinion. C F A 💬 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, we already have a section related to the sexual abuse accusations of Michael Jackson as well as Template:Michael Jackson where every topic on Michael can be found. The 1993 accusations related to the Chandlers and the later accusations in 2005 with the Arvizo family were very extensive and need separate pages to properly cover them. Anyone interest can be redirected Never17 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what the user expects that's what he will find after a redirect here as contrary to Popcornfud's assertion, '1993' is not only about 'the 1993' allegations. If disambiguation is not about the wording is there an example where not a word in the disambiguation page's title matches a word in the linked titles? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (and the edit to your initial post above) is disingenuous. The focus of the 1993 article is the 1993 allegations, hence the article title. There's a subsection at the end that summarises the later allegations, with links to the main articles about those allegations. Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it summarizes the later allegations Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations does the same thus WP:CFORK / WP:REDUNDANT. It's disingenuous to say that the 1993 article focuses on 1993 and the 490-words section about other allegations does not matter when they highlight the same allegations and links you want the user to find based on an arbitrary search term that is just one of many possible variations (Michael Jackson sex allegations, Michael Jackson sexual assault allegations, Michael Jackson sex scandals etc.) With this logic a page titled Michael Jackson's siblings could be created with this content:
Michael Jackson has multiple siblings.
Then we could call it a disambiguation page because when a user searches for "Michael Jackson's siblings" we don't know which siblings they are looking for. Such a page would be deleted because it would be a fork of Jackson family , redudant and not a genuine disambiguation page. Same is true here. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a redirect I agree with the nominator's reasoning. According to WP:D2D, disambiguation is necessary when a word or phrase might lead a reader to more than one existing Wikipedia article.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move the 1993... article back to the base title. Either there are other non-1993 allegations on which wikipedia has content, in which case the dab page is justified (ie the "trial" article: not sure about the film), or the 1993 article covers all allegations in which case it should not have been moved and should be moved back. I know nothing much about Michael Jackson, but I do know that dab pages should be logical. PamD 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree both should not exist at the same time as there is clear overlap between them. MraClean (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (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)

Delete: Article is based upon false premise that the perpatrators are "muslim" nor are there sufficient primary or secondary sources to base the assumption that they are motivated by their faith, nor do we have primary or secondary sources to even affirm the perpatrators faiths. The gangs mentioned throughout are not all even "asian" or therefore "muslim". The article would best be served being incorprated into the existing CSE in the United Kingdom page where there is a section on grooming. This article does nothing but indlude wild assertions and obfuscate valid information countering the lede and name. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has good sources and is well cited. Agree that maybe changing the name or merging would be appropriate but not deletion. There does appear to be some debate the use of the term "Asian grooming gangs". Article does have a section addressing both the terms Muslim grooming gang and Asian grooming gang. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% needs to be merged, the use of "muslim grooming gangs" as a dedicated article is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight given the particular obsession with the topic and ethnicitiy of perpatrators, despite the fact that a lot of perps in these cases are not muslim and are still listed in both the list and map. Problemativ through and throuh. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi TwinkleStarzz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for making your first contribution. The page has been renamed after a WP:RM discussion which changed it from South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic. The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK. The first WP:PROD believed that the article tried to obfuscate or downplay Muslim/Asian grooming gangs hence why new material has been added to provide WP:NPOV. Given the sufficient WP:RS coverage this topic has received, I believe that the page can merit its own article without being merged into a subsection of the main Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom page. There is no implication in this article that perpetrators are motivated by their faith, and quotes are provided from Islamic community leaders to address this. If you believe that any wild assertions or obfuscation of valid information has been made, this can be discussed in the Talk page of the main article, however the article is well-sourced and meets WP:V. I do not believe that the censorship of controversial topics is the way forward. Thanks. --Kioj156 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am puzzled and disappointed by the selective nature in which some editors are choosing to interpret sources, the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe academic study writes: "The controversy related to GLCSE can be resolved through the availability of authoritative data on the identity of the offenders. In order to argue for this we examined over 2,000 press reports on GLCSE prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence. A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE in an area. The proportion of the local population of Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin." It details a list of local authorities analysed in the study (in page 6) so supporting news articles have been provided to support its analysis. The names of other towns and cities has been provided as the HoL document makes the claim that there are 73 towns and cities affected.
I think that your revision of this edit here as NOR shows that your own idea of censorship is perhaps misguided. "The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK." The context already is clear from each individual article, as well as the CSE in the United Kingdom article that goes into grooming as an issue, having an entire article dedicated to "muslim grooming" rather than just, "grooming" is indeed rather odd. Given your edit history, not that I enjoy red herrings either, your do seem to have a certain penchant for this topic and perhapos a need to step back is needed. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused. I am not @Celjski Grad. You may believe it to be odd, however this specific topic has been addressed by multiple political figures, Islamic community leaders and has even inspired far-right terrorist attacks. Kioj156 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my mistake! In any case, my point remains, based upon your edit history you have a certain penchant for this topic, and ethnicities in general, it is certainly odd to create a page dedicated to "muslim grooming" then include groups that are clearly not "muslim". While simultaneously ignoring the "grooming" section in the CSE article to focus entirely on the ethnicitiy of some of the alleged perpatrators. Padding out the exsiting articles about the cases, or the CSE page itself, would better serve without WP:Undue Weight. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TwinkleStarzz, that reversion came up as part of a patrol of new edits predicted to "very likely have problems" — I haven't edited the article before or since. I'd encourage you to read the first paragraph of WP:NOR to see why text such as "it does therefore did not give an accurate representation" is problematic, but since you've successfully navigated the AfD process with your very first edit this shouldn't be necessary. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting that high-profile cases that took place over a number of years involving a high-number of victims resulted in the phenomenon gaining more attention is not a dog whistle. It provides contextual information as to why the association emerged. - Kioj156
  • (10) - A WP:PRIMARY source used to suggest widespread occurrence of muslim gangs.
(10) is an academic study, and there is nothing to suggest that either of the two authors are primary sources.- Kioj156
  • (9), (21) - Conservative politicians decrying cancel culture for not letting them discuss Muslim grooming gangs
This is included in the lede as it is the most recent commentary from political figures, however you will find that politicians across the political spectrum have made commentary on the ethnicity/religion of perpetrators further down in the article. The statement was by the former Prime Minister whilst he was in office.- Kioj156
  • (15), (16) - research specifically discussing reason why muslim grooming gangs is overpublicized and that as white people make up much of the UK, they make up much of the grooming and child sex exploitation abusers.
The UK is a majority-white country (83%) so it should be of no surprise if most crimes are committed white people, the commentary has been on the over representation of the Asian ethnicity. - Kioj156
  • (19) - I have no clue what Spiked-Online is but searching for islam or muslim on it shows significant islamaphobia. supposedly the wikipedia page for Spiked (magazine) indicates it got sued for Bosnian genocide of muslim denialism
Stuart Waiton, the author of the article, is a criminology and sociology academic and it would be better to address the content of his arguments rather than attacking anything else. If you do not believe his figures are correct, the figures he analyses can be found in page 26 of the Home Office report. - Kioj156
  • (25), (26) - written by Julie Bindel, mostly op-eds but stated as facts. Not sure why we are specifically emphasizing that white girls were abused, especially as I cannot find it in the sourcing. The wikipedia page for Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal indicates that it is a stereotype to suggest that only white girls were abused, when the abused children were diverse.
This is not stated as a fact, the Wikipedia entry reads for sources relating to (25), (26), (27) is: "According to feminist writer Julie Bindel, fears over "being accused of racism" had suppressed coverage and reporting of the growing number of grooming gangs operating across the country. Although "gangs" had been in operation since at least the 1990s, it was only until 2007 when The Sunday Times became the first broadsheet to publish an article on the phenomenon." It is to provide commentary on when the issue was first covered by a broadsheet publication, as well as who the publisher was. - Kioj156
No claim has been made that only "white girls were abused", this Wikipedia article also discusses the abuse of Sikh girls. In the case of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency found that "The vast majority of victims were white British girls aged 11 to 18" and "The NCA inquiry, the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage".- Kioj156
  • (46) - says nothing about muslims grooming gangs, simply states abusers were muslim.
    (47) - report does not indicate ethnicity, or religion. Only that taxi drivers were abusers
    (48), (49), (50), (51) - no specific writing of race or religion, just have muslim-ish names printed out.
    actually sources 43-88 are just read outs of local crime reports. I stopped reading past 51 because of how lazy and useless this is.
    (28), (84), (114) - The Sun is deprecated,
(28) is used to provide a claim by a Sikh charity that abuse began in the 1960s, and (84) is used to provide a name of a settlement. It is not used for analysis.
  • (114) - and we are using an opinion piece as analysis, one that caused significant outrage.
(114) is not used for analysis. It is used to provide a direct quotation of the specific words used by the Labour MP and the subsequent backlash she received. This line of thought also applies to the opinion pieces written by other politicians.
  • This is after 30 minutes of tearing through sourcing. Is there a way to have some neutral version of this article up? Maybe. Is child sex exploitation by desi men a worthy topic to consider? Including by considering criticism of it as racialized dog whistling? Yes. But as is, this article is entirely racist BUNK not even worth keeping a history of, and should be wiped from wikipedia.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I keep looking through and tearing apart this article? Yeah. Not worth my time. Someone else can throw their lot at it if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative to deletion - Revert to this version [1], and rename article to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I prefer this option actually. I've reverted to last good version. There is probably a sex abuse issue in the UK desi community, and some research indicates it could be due to lack of tools and social support to Desi women. There is also probably a POV article when we uncritically misuse sourcing to allege every other UK desi guy is a sex abuser. I think we can start to rework sourcing from previous bad version eventually back into this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth incorprating into the CSE page under localised grooming, not having a standalone article that as you've correctly pointed out will be subject to rife POV edits and problems, keeping it all on one page where the subject can be discussed with full context is much more worth it than a singular article that we know will historically be problematic with certain editos - whether now or in the future. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert asap to the last good version[[2]]. WP is not a soapbox for moral panic mongering. Subsequently we can talk about WP:SIGCOV for the moral panic and the best title to present it in case it passes WP:N. –07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)
  • Delete, per Hydrangeans' comments above, with particular regard to the academic source cited therein.[3] Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of moral panics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clear case for WP:TNT. The problem with this page is that, as Hydrangeans has demonstrated, the encyclopaedic subject of this subject is framed quite differently, and as long as this article persists in this format and with this framing and page history, editors will be fighting a losing battle against a media-fuelled narrative of moral panic. That is to say, the existence of a page about a thing implies that the thing is itself a subject. It isn't. The subject is moral panic, racism, islamophobia and the persistence of media led narratives. This should probably be mentioned in appropriate articles (several of them, so no redirect makes sense - and a redirect is harmful). Although it should be mentioned in appropriate places, there is no case for an article itself, which would always look like a war zone. TNT is not enough. Needs C4. Maybe a nuke. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I was going to vote keep, until I saw what a POV mess this is. It needs so much work it might be better to scrap it and start from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has been derailed from the original topic by POV edits. Or at the very least revert to the last good version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1231313707 and additionaly revert the article name to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" or similar memphisto 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then is that because this coverage came from "generally reliable" newspapers like The Times, there will inevitably be people who will argue that we have to present this "Muslim grooming gang" coverage as a mainstream perspective that should be presented as equally legitimate to the very critical academic coverage. This topic in my opinion is already briefly but adequately covered at Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe it's worth noting that two currently-cited academic articles use the phrase "Muslim grooming gangs" in their titles. Based on that alone, I'd argue that the topic is notable. However, as others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to move the page to something like 'Muslim grooming gangs moral panic in the UK' to indicate this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and well said, it was a frustrating topic to research with all the racist nonsense getting in the way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significa liberdade: "this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering". Indeed. This is what I'd hoped would be addressed with the proposed title of "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" - to say that there is a notable topic here, but it is the discourse itself, not a specific group of people. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a phenomenon that needs an article. There is vast evidence of it and it is a major thing in the UK. It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith (nobody is saying, incidentally, that they were motivated by that faith). Denial of this is sticking one's head in the sand. However, as I said at the RM, renaming it to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it stood was racist dogwhistling, and many of the sources cited (and originally misused) all either talk about how the media does ridiculous amounts of attention on the ethnicities especially to suggest brown male on white girl violence, that statistics suggest that vast majority of abusers in UK are still white and sources otherwise were often politically motivated, or that a lack of resources for brown desi girls caused issues with sexual assault.
    I propose renaming it to Grooming gangs moral panic in the United Kingdom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Do you have a source for that? That looks like a media narrative. Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford all fit that profile, but not the Camborne gang, nor the Glasgow one, nor whatever the heck you call this one [4], and countless more. Stats do not bear out the media narrative. There is no subject here, except the subject of media induced moral panic based on after the fact correlation of selected cases, and studied ignorance of the remainder. By having a page we lend credence to the false narrative. An encyclopaedic article needs to focus on the failings that got us here, and not perpetrate those same failings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like a media narrative. So, now Wikipedia rejects media sources like the BBC which have always been held to be reliable? That's a new one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black. BBC: [5]

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article." this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Incorporating it into the existing CSE article on Grooming is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and others here that have commented. The exisiting individual articles on each case goes into more than enough detail and wouldn't serve as a hub for malicious POV edits like the original did. Not to mention that no one has created any articles on the various "white" grooming gang cases, only a certain type make the wiki - that itself is perhaps a problem. In any case, renaming it to a moral panic - which it is, is a secondary option to incorporating it. Having a standalone article would need to be consistently monitored to stop those POV racist edits and is perhaps more work than worth. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. As I said, it can be renamed to simple Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, or didn't you bother reading what I actually wrote before jumping to incorrect conclusions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you say "It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" when the article actually says that is false [6] [7]. When someone commenting on an article where the information is right in front of them actually states the opposite, it is unsurprising that the intellectually challenged who took part in the recent riots believe it as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. " That's not what I did. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Yup, that's exactly what you did! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, saying you're using language that racists use, doesn't mean that you are a racist. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a racist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read things more carefully! Try not to accuse *me* of anything in the meantime as you just did! TwinkleStarzz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, just responding to User:Sirfurboy's point above: the question was Do you have a source for that?, and the answer is yes: whether or not Necrothesp does, I do. It's in the academic source I linked above. To quote it exactly:

...Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE) identified to date, relative to the general population.

As always, the context is important. The title of that paper is Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, which rather gives away its central thesis; it doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position. I invite you to read it in full here.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) I've reflected on this again and I really like Bluethricecreamman's wording, "moral panic". That's a pithy and laser accurate term for what we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its what the article and title originally was before all the pov edits and the RM move. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't; it was "South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic". The panic was there, but the moral panic is, as far as I can see, all yours.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Actually, that isn't a source for what Sirfurboy was asking. Necrothesp didn't say Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, he said It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith, which is false. And I'm going to say it again - that's two obviously intelligent people who are befuddled by this article, so it's no surprise it's become a racist trope for the hard of thinking, is it? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's got an academic source too, though. Let me quote it:

we examined over 2,000 press reports on [Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders] prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence.

Source is here. The issue is with the extreme specific-ness of the offence: "Group localized CSE offenders".—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position is indeed correct. The source I requested was for the statement: It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. That is wrong, and the fact that an editor and admin with the experience and intelligence of Necrothesp can make such a statement demonstrates the pernicious nature of media narratives, and the danger of a page that leans into them. From the conclusions of that paper:

The image of the Asian groomer has proved a seductive and enduring one, yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

And lest I be accused of cutting that of where it suits me, I note that it does go on to say that Asians are the second-largest racial group among suspects of various forms of CSE in two major national studies, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population. (my emphasis). That "various forms" is a gotcha. If we narrow the parameters then yes, the group is proportionally over-represented, but that is not at all the same thing as the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this: if you narrow the parameters in an extremely specific way, you find that a certain kind of CSE in the UK is mainly perpetrated by South Asian Muslims. But if you use other parameters that isn't true.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population for that very narrow form (and law of small numbers now applies). If you narrow the parameters any further, you are consciously selecting for the result you wish to find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic and seemingly ongoing/current cultural situation in the UK. As Kioj156, Vulpes and others state, it is well sourced, cited and beyond contention. The topic merits it's own page, it does seem a tad like censorship of a controversial topic, not what an encyclopaedia should be aiming for.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor, just because it is "sourced" does not mean it is actual quality. Nor is it particularly historic given grooming for sexual purposes of children, even as groups, has existed for centuries. I would personally also contest "current/ongoing" given the majority of articles are 2014/2015. Not to mention the statistics quoted being plainly false in the original article and the other egregious issues others have pointed out earlier on this page. Namely Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite. While the topic itself may warrant a page - the "moral panic" being the best example = the original article was wholly unfit to be on the wiki. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove articles. The topic exists and is clearly notable. I would, however, support moving it to "Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom", since that would provide the same content and presumably ruffle people's jimmies less. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single argument has been IDONTLIKEIT, and citing that is ad hominem. The argument is that it is not a thing.

yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "UK grooming gangs moral panic" or something similar. Naming the country it took place in is neutral, unlike alleging that it was unique to one particular religion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Horton

Cal Horton (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)

Research fellow at Oxford Brookes, not reaching WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus publication output is consistent with their career stage. Has appeared in the media (including podcasts) as an expert with others, but this dosn't seem sufficient for independent notability (notability isn't inherited). Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man or bear

Man or bear (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)

Notability; Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, and not every Twitter drama or meme can have its own Wikipedia page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SUSTAINED. All the media articles are from within a timespan of a few weeks or months. Nobody's going to remember this meme a year from now. Hell, people barely remember it already. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:GNG clearly isn't a concern here considering how much sourcing is available, and we can't exactly predict whether the meme will remain popular or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have to predict much; almost all the sources are from late April to early May. The meme's already long since died. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article, with all of its references, makes it abundantly apparent that the subject was a flash-in-the-pan viral meme without any significance beyond how many people heard about it and talked about it for about a month or two. This wasn't a scientific study performed by people looking to answer a question, it was the results of a content farm hunting for clips to post online. Not to mention the article has a good number of glaring issues, from the completely unnecessary "illustration" made from image cutouts to the whole section on "Scientific Validity" focusing on a seemingly relevant statistic rather than any insight into the methodology (which, ironically, is found in a previous section, but still comes from purely journalistic commentary). Kodiak42 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. This is not a biography where WP:BIO1E might apply, nor is any of the coverage "routine" (where WP:NOTNEWS might apply). It is clear that the outside world has already "taken notice of it" and it is thus a notable topic. C F A 💬 03:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't some flash in the pan meme, it's something that's been covered extensively by several reputable publications. Most memes are never notable and don't ever meet GNG, while this subject clearly does. I disagree strongly with Closed Limelike Curve's argument that no one will remember this a year from now given that plenty of coverage talks about this meme's wider context with regards to sexism and everyday culture. [9][10][11] There are easily many more sources out there, many of which are already in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struggle to imagine I'm on an encyclopaedia reading the pabulum in this article, half of it feels like a coatrack too. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: Do you have a policy based argument for deletion instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They cited WP:COATRACK, but I don’t see how that essay applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is unencyclopaedic and I do not see any source that could improve that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic how? It's a studied phenomenon/event. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are studies they are not presented in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "studied", I don't mean the formal way. There are many news sources cited that analyzes the phenomenon. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even an argument for deletion here? The topic is notable. There is no policy that supports its deletion beyond personal opinion. I think you should take a look at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC... C F A 💬 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a solid consensus. Remember, articles are not assessed on whether or not an individual editors sees their value but whether reliable sources establish that this is a notable subject. I'm sure we all know of articles whose value is doubtful but it's the sources and policies, not our opinions, that matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was no consensus. After much=extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that works and sources cited are sufficient to scrape by minimum standards for notability, with the possibility of notability being found and articles created for additional works featuring the subject. BD2412 T 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Lloyd Rains

AfDs for this article:
Darby Lloyd Rains (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)

16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I have spent too much of my volunteer time checking much of the article's supposed references, and they are just a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions and unreliable sources that do not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Curious to know which sources precisely can be deemed "unreliable", except IAFD, which I didn't add myself and that can be removed (feel free); and the source for her role in "This film is all about..." (which I (had) tagged myself as poor, in the hope that an expert or any other user could add a better one, the film being by Damiano) (NB- I just removed both references). "supposed references" is also an interesting choice of words (are they not real? are they fake? Did I make anything up? are they not there?); and how much is "much" of 41 footnotes? 12, 38? As for WP:REFBOMB, well, I did my best to source every statement and role in the partial filmography (more exists) and I don't think (such was not my intent, at least) that any of the references is used in any of the 4 ways mentioned in that essay. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, is a guideline, and would seem the applicable guideline, and it states, "This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (the field of entertainment being cinema/acting) Is it not the case and are the coverage and mention/appraisal of her roles in the reviews of her most notable films, for example, not sufficient to prove it? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Bludgeon Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning? OK. Was it when I was replying to your comment on my !vote and on your comments to every reply I gave to others, or when I mentioned you didn't bother to check the page and your rationale was inaccurate? Or when I asked what you found in your BEFORE? Or when I replied to Liz's question in her aside?
    Or simply when I commented on the 2 !votes? The link you provide most kindly, states:

    It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to pick apart every single comment that is contrary to your position.

    There are only 3 !votes here, including mine. I've replied, politely, I think, to point "per nom" was a bit surprising and ask a question to identify potential unreliable sources. I'll stop commenting at all here, but I am not exactly certain I am the one bludgeoning the process here, even though my replies took me more time and work than yours took you, most obviously. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a clear pass of WP:NACTOR, for starring roles in multiple notable films? We even have independent articles for three of the films listed in this article already. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and in addition to those three, I'm convinced that Angel on Fire, which we don't have an article for yet, also is a notable film, simply on the basis of the sources already in the article. Abduction of an American Playgirl is, too. And many of these reviews are from decades after the debuts of the original films! These aren't just "notable in their time" films. These are films with real lasting notability. The more I look the more convinced I am that this is an obvious WP:NACTOR pass here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another academic article to the sources here. This is where I'll stop. We've kept articles on WP:NACTOR grounds on much, much less. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The outcome here depends on NACTOR rather than GNG: further consideration of NACTOR would be helpful in determining a clear outcome. At the moment this is leaning keep because the arguments for deletion are countering GNG rather than NACTOR, but I would prefer to wait for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

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=1242611435"