Points of interest related to Human sexuality on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Assessment – To-do

Points of interest related to Gender studies on Wikipedia: Outline – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

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.

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

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:

Lucy Grantham

Lucy Grantham (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)

This biography was originally deleted 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". The same objections apply to the recreated article: subject does not meet notability under WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • keep** seems to be notable based on references SanDiegoDan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I believe the references fail WP:SIGCOV. Only one notable film ("Last House"). Her few other appearances were non-notable supporting roles in obscure low-budget/porn productions. The obituary cited for the Lucy Greenberg who died in New York in 2023 has no biographical information - we don't even have a reliable secondary source to verify that this is the same person as the subject. Muzilon (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of hard-to-justify sources in this article. Agree we can't see that the aliases actually correspond to her. It seems that both obituaries are of different people. All we have is one major film, and I don't think that's enough for WP:NACTOR at least without some significant coverage devoted to her. Oblivy (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Probably not meeting ACTOR, but we seem to have enough for GNG, a detailed biography and some coverage of her life after the Wes Craven film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b curious what you're seeing in terms of biography. She gets mentions for the Wes Craven film, but I only see biography in terms of the obituaries neither of which is clearly her. (Go ahead, change my mind!) Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources 2 and 3 mostly, seem to flesh out the article. An actress with one role for which she's remembered, the rest is nicely detailed. I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If by "source 2" you mean the engagement notice for "Miss Lucy Grunther" in the NY Times, I doubt whether that qualifies as independent of the subject - it may well be a paid advertisement. If source 3 is the Fred Lincoln interview, that is very much a trivial mention of a "Lucy" whose surname is not even given. Muzilon (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree it's a nicely detailed article but I don't see how this article has been constructed out of the sources, unless Source 2 and the Szulkin book have a LOT of biographical information.

• 1 - mismatch of birth year (1948 vs 1951) and the description of Lucy doesn't provide a clear link
• 2 - can't access but if it's an engagement notice that's not really notability-worthy
• 3 - dubious as it just says "Lucy" in a passing mention, although Lincoln did co-star with her in Last House.
• 4 - passing mention, unclear if this is the same person as it's not about a movie she's known to have acted in
• 5/10 - can't access the Szulkin book
• 6/8 - brief mentions plus a quote
• 7 - about the movie not her
• 9 - barely a passing mention, just lists her as an actress in the movie and in a photo caption
• 11 - mentions her a lot as part of the extended DVD features
• 12 - no content, possibly not about her (again, the 1948 birth year)

Oblivy (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to Last House on the Left, her only notable film. Muzilon (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being Mortal (film)

Being Mortal (film) (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)

As it stands this film holds no current plans to resume production in the near future, thus no longer satisfying WP:NFF. The film's production history is not extensive enough to me to merit exemption ala Akira (planned film). I attempted restoration back to draftspace to hold it, this was refused so now I must pursue deletion. NFF not satisfied, no guarantee for it to even be revisited, production history not extensive. This does not pass muster for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I have taken your talk page deletion of my comment as me not being welcome there. Pinging you to inform of deletion discussion. Rusted AutoParts 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Law, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NFF as principal photography has begun. This is precisely a case where the production itself is notable, as covered by the cited sources: [1][2][3][4][5]. It is Akira (planned film) that lacks "extensive production history"—in fact it has zero production history—in violation of NFF (but survived two AfDs anyway). If anything, the existence of that article supports keeping this article, not deleting it. Nardog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, the literal first sentence on the article is "Being Mortal is a suspended (really should be rephrased to cancelled) American comedy-drama film written, directed, produced by, and starring Aziz Ansari in what was set to be his feature directorial debut". Whether it had begun or not is moot, it was pretty thoroughly cancelled in the state it had been in, and is not considered a production intended to even happen anymore. NFF is not satisfied in this sense, since the production had issues that ultimately interfered with it's intention to be a released film.

  I had been the one to spearhead the two deletion discussions for Akira. Both times it was deemed notable on it's development/production history. Years and even decades worth of news. Being Mortal does not match that, hence the comparison. All it had really was film announced and some castings. The rest is about the suspending incident, which can just as effectively be covered at Ansari, Murray or both individual Wiki pages. By itself, it absolutely does not pass muster. Rusted AutoParts 02:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We have articles about upcoming films not because we think they will be notable once they're released—which would be WP:CRYSTAL—but because they're already notable. NFF makes no distinction between forthcoming and suspended films. Your speculation on the "intention to be a released film" is OR, CRYSTAL, and irrelevant. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely not OR, it's sourced in the article itself. "The filmmakers sought to find a financier and distributor to replace Searchlight to no avail. Ansari reportedly intends (Also love how this is sourced in there, he himself didn't even say this) to revisit Being Mortal", that's not speculation, that's an assertion the production is nonexistent. It was offloaded by it's distributor and ceased production almost two years ago. We aren't using a crystal ball to predict anything and I'm not asserting any kind of original research. And what sets this production apart from other upcoming films is that this is not an upcoming film anymore, and those other films have not been cancelled or suspended or delayed in production. What IS original research however is this edit summary where you assert what the category is for even though your special definition for it is not present in the category's description. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Puck source used to highlight Ansari "reportedly intends" to revisit it states the production will not be finished. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A precedejt was also established with the film Gore, a film just about done with it's post-production cancelled. It's production history outside of the reason it was cancelled parallels the production history of Being Mortal. Too sparse details about the film, not the reason it was shelved, but the film itself were available, so it didn't meet notability on it's own. Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable production failure.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? The incident involving Murray doesn't make the attempted film itself notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage makes it notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage that pertains more to the actions of Bill Murray. Still doesn't make the film or it's subsequent cancellation notable per NFF. "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". The film's "failure" isn't notable. It's failure was not the result of tumultuous or costly production problems detailed in length. It was the result of a crewmember's conduct, a crewmember who has a Wiki page we can, and already have, noted on their page. Rusted AutoParts 02:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure was significantly covered in reliable sources ergo notable per the guideline. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This has started a "principal photography" passing WP:NFF. The suspension coverage [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] can be case of WP:ONE EVENT. Moving per BEFORE, the movie has been noted for it's role and it's suspension. For now, there mother option than to keep the record—suspension and it's SIGCOV!. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]