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

Affirming Pentecostal Church International

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

There are no reliable, independate, relevant, or recent sources on this organization. Even the website of the organization itself does not have any organizational information on it. It definitely does not pass the WP:Notability or WP:Verifiability tests. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Christianity, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 3 October 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 redirect‎ to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. The nomination was indeed flawed, as one participant correctly pointed out. Poor article content should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion rationale. There is no policy support for deletion as a tool for rewriting an article about a notable topic, despite the popularity of the WP:TNT essay. That said, consensus is that this topic is not independently notable. Editors are welcome to selectively merge content into the target, if warranted. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no sources. Article is in an enormous mess and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title. WP:TNT. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why this can't be covered under the main Ceop article. This is a former program, that's been renamed, with no sourcing other than primary items. We don't need an old article to talk about something else; this is either notable or it isn't. I don't see coverage for this defunct website program thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I concur there is no reason for this as a stand alone article due to previously mentioned arguements, but I think it should redirect to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command. Demt1298 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because the campaign has been run and appears active in other countries, such as Australia AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of primary coverage exists about the Australian campaign so either DISAMBIGUATE or keep as a Wp:SETiNDEX? Or simply keep, indicate there are UK and AUS campaigns and cut/improve....https://inews.co.uk/news/national-crime-agency-animated-series-jessie-and-friends-young-children-online-grooming-268647 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sharenting-warning-online-predators-are-asking-parents-to-facilitate-child-sexual-abuse/fcs1m1rhc https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/thinkuknow-program-launched-to-battle-online-porn-risk/8863942 not opposed to Redirect but then the Australian campaign should be mentioned in the dedicated section of CEOP (by a hatnote or in prose; NB the section does not yet exist, so technically implies a merge). I know this should not be an argument at AfD but still, this time I will say it, this is useful. I won’t bold anything but feel free to, if you think it should be made clear I suggest 3 or 4 different outcomes but not deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please check sources identified during the first Keep AfD. Thanks,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is have you seen the state of the article? It's no longer about the ThinkUKnow campaign, it's entirely about something else which is not notable. This mess should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mess, sure, but not the page :D. I will start. Feel free to revert my edits. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no references or any sources that support its statements. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article deletion is not the solution for badly written content, although blanking and redirection could be. However, this article has been completely rewritten since nomination and now is a stub that has 8 sources from 2 different countries. It can be improved and expanded upon. Potentially there are two different article here, but simply documenting the name is a first step. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nomination was purely about the current state of the page. If it's been hijacked and turned into something different then edit it, go back to the pre hijack page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 1 October 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