Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender reveal party accidents

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of gender reveal party accidents[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Mentioning most of these incidents also goes against the principle of WP:BLP1E, as noted on the talk page. Most of them are just covered by local news, which is not noteworthy. The whole theme of treating "gender reveal party accident" as a notable category - and not singling out any other kind of party - also seems rather WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXy, even if some source mentioned one when reporting on another. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reporting on such accidents from gender-reveal parties seems to be a years-long theme of news media. to the point that there are now articles on the general theme of such parties ending in misfortune, sometimes including their own lists (e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5). Just the New York Times coverage alone is considerable: "Explosive devices used at gender-reveal events have been linked to at least two deaths since 2019 and two major wildfires" it noted this week, after asking "Are Gender Reveals Cursed?" last year, after saying, the year before that, that "a plane crash could be added to th[e] list" of gender-reveal parties that "have ended in calamity". While each singular event may not be considered notable, surely the concept of "gender-reveal parties as a general cause of accidents" is. Crossroads, you say that this "Fails WP:LISTN", but don't say why. Reading through it, it seems crystal clear that gender-reveal-party accidents have with extreme frequency been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources 2-5 are not WP:Reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment I think this is a useful resource, accidents are becoming one of the most notable aspects of gender reveal parties, and a list is a useful addition Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a real thing that gets coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/08/california-gender-reveal-fire/ The woman who started the trend even posted online asking people to stop it, it just causing so many problems. Dream Focus 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed in national, not just local media, and treated as a group per the quotations provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because a major news outlet mentions past ones when reporting a recent one doesn't mean there is significant coverage of this as an alleged topic. Doubly so if the source is trying to push a narrative about gender reveal parties. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the source is “push[ing] a narrative” about these collectively, that sounds exactly like significant coverage of the group as a topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list article is an excuse to detail every non-notable mishap at a gender reveal party, which is not discriminate: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (WP:NOT). None of these people will be notable (WP:BIO1E) and none of the individual events will be notable (WP:EVENT). Much of the reporting is low-quality sensationalism, which we should not use (WP:SENSATIONAL). There already is a section in Gender reveal party regarding incidents that can be used to appropriately summarize the problems with these events; appropriate sources for that section are pieces that discuss the general issue of gender reveal parties going wrong, not those which only cover individual incidents. With this article we are immortalising - indeed mocking, with the link to Darwin Award - a traumatic event in the lives of non-public figures. We are an encyclopedia, not a pillory. Fences&Windows 20:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SENSATIONAL, gender reveal party accidents, like most other accidents, are not notable, and this article only exists as it has become a fad to sensationalize them. This kind of thing can get a mention in gender-reveal party#Incidents and injuries and that's all it needs. The keep rationale by User:Lajmmoore demonstrates this; as most gender reveal parties don't end in accidents but tabloid reporting has led to the perception they do._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as very few incidents, if any, would satisfy the criteria for WP:NEVENT. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773, that reason is explicitly rejected by the notability guidelines: "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. ... Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". --Usernameunique (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't clearly been discussed as a group or set - 'incidents have happened at other gender reveals like this and that' is not significant coverage or discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - per all above 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, per below 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Gender_reveal_party#Incidents_and_injuries already has a few key incidents. This section could be expanded or restructured, but this should not be a stand-alone list that attempts to collect every little bit of passing sensationalized news events. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes more sense to have these incidents listed in their own list article than the ever-growing section of the Gender reveal party page. It's good future-proofing, as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to have such a listing of non-notable incidents. This clearly fails not news and not indiscriminate rules. I have to admit I never understood these parties, but I do not understand why to single out these parties for mockery either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I came here due to the discussion at BLPN, and this not only contains so many BLP issues and violations, but is also a magnet for many more problems and vios that I don't even know where to begin. First, we should be keeping in mind that a list is not a way to circumvent BLP1E, and that we usually try to respect the privacy of non-notable people. For example, we don't name the spouses and children of notable people, unless those people are themselves notable in their own right, nor do we name non-notable victims of crimes or accidents. (See any airline crash or bridge collapse.) Not everybody wants to be famous (and wisely so), nor does everyone appreciate having their humiliation carved in stone next to their name on Wikipedia.

This is just a collection of accidents that someone grouped together under an arbitrary title. It's simply a way of cross-referencing info. We could just as easily have a list of people injured by cannons at a party, or accidents involving collisions between snowmachines (snowmobiles) and powerline cables. This is a perfect example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not a search engine, and I'd leave this sort of cross-referencing to google. For those who would point out a need for safety, I would point to WP:NOTMANUAL.

What we're basically doing here is creating a category, and you have to be very careful with categories and lists when it comes to BLPs, because --even with the best of intentions-- categorization is the root of all stereotyping which in turn is the root of all prejudice. (Just check any good psychology book for sources on that.) Even with the best of intentions, it can have a terrible way of backfiring. Whenever we do this, we're creating a list of people and defining them solely by the title of that category/list, and that is extremely one-sided and stereotypical. An encyclopedia is about defining things, and a good list article has a subject it defines, but that subject simply consists of multiple elements. Basic fighter maneuvers is a good example of a list article, and so is List of fallacies. This is more a list of BLP violations just waiting to happen. Zaereth (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~BLP issues can/should be dealt with by removing names in the articles~~ I have gone ahead and removed all non-notable names from the list which should take care of BLP issues. Passes WP:LISTN as news outlets have covered this as a trend. As per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, none of the categories of articles detailed in the policy actually apply in this situation. Zoozaz1 talk 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of policy and guideline violations here are almost too much to get into without delving into WP:TLDR problems. This represents a trivial non-identifying characteristic for a list to be built around (WP:SALAT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), it's entirely populated by minor embarrassing news stories about people who otherwise have done nothing to merit inclusion in Wikipedia for any reason (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP), it's a magnet for absolutely unremarkable local news. Just, no. The defense of this article seems to consist of people asserting that it doesn't violate all of these policies, against the clear and blatant background of it doing just that. Please make it go away. --Jayron 32 19:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOTTEMP. All of these incidents are one-off accidents or bone-headed decisions. While each one may be verified by local news sources the Gender-reveal common thread doesn't warrant its own stand-alone list. Had these incidents happened at company picnics would they be notable? Blue Riband► 06:47, 7 March 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.