Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

WP:DSSG
WP:AFD/SEX

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sexuality and gender.

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[edit]

Human-oriented sexualism[edit]

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

COATRACK for fictosexuality, which is already itself a fringe topic with the article existing mainly as a massive advocacy page. In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/"analysis" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric. The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off. Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. this is fringe nonsense. ltb d l (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete

It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references. Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions. Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research.

Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.

Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric. While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan. Zuzz22 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is your second edit, the first being this fascinating edit to the article... ltb d l (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either. It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity. Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently. I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it. It's an attempt at trickery.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or maybe very limited merge?). This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of "fictosexuality studies". Oh dear. That seems to be a red link... Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists? So what about the term itself? I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one. Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is "anthropocentricism" (not Anthropocentrism) which it distinguishes from "interpersonalism". Google translates various phrases as "(thing) research" when it clearly means "research about (thing)", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline. So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named. I don't see a topic here in its own right. This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse. In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting merged there provided that they are well referenced. I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places. Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations. Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at very least merge. The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate. If the article is fringe and "advocacy" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article. Until then, it can be marked as {{fringe}} without needing to delete it. Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality, I can also see a merge as a valid option. However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a "would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology"; "would"? "almost certainly"? That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not? Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept. It's pretty much 100% POV pushing "scholarly" sources from obscure blogs and low quality "journals". Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen. This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman).★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons? It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What leads you to perceive this article as "100% POV" relying on "low-quality "journals"? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society (日本社会学会) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies, enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society, comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as "just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers. Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article. Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be deleted.

Gruebleener (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are little of what the article covers, it's not even clear that the translations here are accurate. Any of what they can say would be better said in the fictosexuality article, there is no independent notable subject here. ★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Deletion review[edit]