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

TVX 40+

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

No significant coverage. Also, the first reference is a now deleted press release, and the second reference is a press release. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - I think it's better suited as either an expansion onto the Television X or Red Hot TV pages due to a lack of sources. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jones (military officer)

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

Not notable for her military career. Seems to be a situation in which the subject is notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E) - mainly there is a burst of news coverage from when a story focusing on her trans identity was published on the army.mil website in 2023 and caused some sort of "backlash" per Newsweek. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. Bridget (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rachel Jones is on Wikipedia for the United States Army publicly acknowledging her transition and subsequent anger by conservatives. Classic WP:BLP1E. There is no consensus on Newsweek as a reliable source and much of the anger comes from publications like the The Daily Caller. The two Army press releases are questionable as secondary sources. The only other mention I found is a Quad City Times article about a Trans Visibility Day event, in the Quad Cities, attended by ~50 people at which she, a local resident of the Quad Cities, was one of several speakers. If all that exists after the initial outburst is a single local newspaper article, it is clear that she is resuming life as a low-profile individual. There does not appear to be an appropriate article in Category:LGBTQ military history in the United States to redirect, therefore, a delete is the most appropriate result.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morgpie

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER.

Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor.

(renomination after first nomination was speedy-closed due to article being on the Main Page) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Video games, and Texas. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I obviously am advocating for a keep here. It was already speedy kept because it appeared on the main page in the DYK section. This means it already underwent the DYK review process which ensures that referencing is suitable and appropriate, and ensures the article is presentable. If one goes to the DYK nom discussion, they can see this was a bit more of an involved process too. There, I addressed why specific sources worked and conceded ones that didn't. Those that totally didn't have since been removed and replaced. Ultimately, I made sure during that process to have sources within the article to be in-line with how WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS allows for specific sources to be approached/implemented. I apologize if this is in any way inappropriate or out of place, but I figured a courtesy ping for that DYK nom's reviewer (@Tenpop421:) and promoter (@Launchballer:) may end up being helpful to further understand why that DYK nom was successful and found no issues with sourcing.

To be totally comprehensive/fair and address the concerns listed here:

"Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER."

No, in my view, this does not fail to meet WP:GNG. Idk why "most sources" matters here (and I know it doesn't as per WP:GNG only asking that articles have significant coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't set any real hard lines on how many of the article's sources need to be meeting that criteria, though I assume the bare minimum is two since plural "reliable sources" is written in criteria). Yes, the majority of sources I incorporated do not do full deep-dives on Morgpie. Some of them mention her in passing, and some of the sources the article uses are there just to verify context around her (i.e. the Ars Technica source). However, there are present multiple sources that do satisfy the criteria of being significant coverage and reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'd also argue other sources such as 6, and 7 help supplement/flesh out the article's sourcing. Basically, if there was a lack of sourcing present in regards to satisfying WP:GNG, it would be made up by the whole being greater than the sum of the parts here (in terms of sourcing). But like I'm saying, ample sourcing is there.

Also WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENTERTAINER is met in aggregate here. Those criteria are so briefly detailed/described, but points 1 and 2 in WP:CREATIVE are met here. Those two points that ask the individual to (1) be regarded as important/cited by peers and (2) have originated a new concept/theory/technique. That's covered by the fact that there is sourcing present (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that cites her originating metas (essentially Twitch content-equivalent of a concept/technique/genre) that influenced other creators on the platform (whether they like her content or not). Here's an additional source of one of the platform's biggest creators (Cr1TiKaL, who in this case would be considered her peer or at least contemporary on Twitch) calling her the "most influential". I would say this sort of thing also helps satisfy point 2 ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") of the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.

"Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable."

This wasn't a "one-off stunt" though. Sourcing present, especially from 2024, make it clear that she has multiple times influenced other creators on the platform (as well as the platform itself to respond to her content). Sentences from sourcing present in the article include: (1); "This isn't the first time Morgpie's creativity has led Twitch to a reactionary policy change"; (2); "several risqué streams hosted by one of the platform's most notorious boundary pushers. Morgpie, who played a pivotal in the "topless meta" that flourished on Twitch last December, found a new way to challenge Twitch's censors". The other points in the WP:BLP1E criteria ("The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" are also not applicable here; as an active streamer, she is not even trying to remain a low-profile individual; and her role in the "one-off stunt" here (again not a one-off, anyway, but if it was,) was both substantial and well documented.

Also, as a further consideration, she was a pornographic actress prior to becoming a Twitch streamer, which further suggests she isn't notable for one event, and this is also bolstered by her winning of major porn industry awards (1), 2) which also establishes her as notable outside of the Twitch content sphere.

"Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor."

I actually don't care about this. I definitely am assuming good faith here in the nomination. I also honestly wouldn't know whether pornographic-industry bios are more or less likely to be tagged for deletion. I do think the nomination (in my view) is closer to snow side of the spectrum than not, but I don't think it was maliciously intended nor do I think you're trying to be a censor.

Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment: Notability demonstrated by several incidents involving apparent nudity causing a series of reactions from others. At the same time, the article's section on this topic is sensationally written and artificially inflated through opinions and statements from official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown. While it absolutely fails WP:BLP1E, being a lower profile individual with little notability outside of the stunt. It does demonstrate the most basic of GNG, so I'm not considering a Delete just yet. Still, I don't believe users need the picture of topless Morgpie or her playing Fortnite greenscreened on her buttocks to identify her behavior of streaming with a risque sense of humor to apparently varied reception as a subject of (exaggerated) discussion in the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself stated "Notability demonstrated" and that is passes GNG (also shouldn't and really doesn't matter if it passes the "most basic" criteria or not: if it passes, it passes). So the notability here isn't the issue. So already, that's one rationale in the nomination you disagree with. You agree with the "WP:BLP1E" concern, but as I said above in my initial comment, there are in fact multiple moments in her Twitch content career described in the article's prose and indeed cited by the sources used. I addressed that BLP1E concern in my comment, and I feel like calling what she did a "stunt", likely unintentionally but still, downplays the content in the article? If I recall correctly, none of the sourcing describes it as a stunt, so trying to place that description on her content wouldn't be in bounds here.
Your other issues seems to be with how the article is written and the imagery used. Those shouldn't come into play in regards to deleting the whole article. Those are issues that can be addressed by improving the article instead of just nuking it entirely. But at the same time, how is the article written sensationally? Like where is the sensationalism? Genuinely, please point out the concrete examples or instances of that, because I wrote the majority of this article, and actually do not appreciate that it's being called "sensational". I tried my best to write it in the objective, encyclopedic wikivoice that is expected on here, so if you're going to call it sensational, then point out the instances where that may occur and I'll see if I can tweak/fix/address it. But doing a quick re-skim over the prose right now, I don't really see what you can be referring to.
I also don't get your concern about "artificial inflation" of the prose. You mention that's done by opinions and statements from "official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown." But okay yeah, I think including how Twitch, the platform itself, officially responded to her content is absolutely critical and necessary here... so what's the issue? Including that info doesn't "inflate" the article, "artificially" or otherwise. How other streamers reacted is needed here too, because it provides a sense of the content's reception, and the article doesn't go overboard with any sort of exhaustive list of every single person's feelings on it. Also, the deletion nomination invokes the rationale of the article supposedly failing WP:CREATIVE. That guideline literally mentions peers regarding the subject as important as a criteria that if met, establishes the subject's notability. So how then does including other streamers' (i.e. peers') opinions on her as influential "inflate" the article? Regarding "Magazine/news editors" opinions, those should be more than fine to include because they give a third-party opinion/view of the subject and her content. I actually think there's only one such opinion included in the article (the Stanley quote), and aside it's just standard inclusion of third-party reception of someone's content. What's the issue there?

Other statements in the reception section are included to describe+cite (1) the influence of Morgpie's content on other streamers' output (i.e. copycat streamers), (2) comparisons to a previous meta (which I found relevant to include because Morgpie commented on this herself), and (3) how Twitch users reacted to the policy changes that, and this is critical to understand here, occurred in response to the content that Morgpie popularized on the platform. How is any of that undue or inflationary to include and how would that be trying to "show more content than what is being shown" (which I am already unsure about what that means).

The images used are also in-bounds here, as they help give a visual to the article (and there is no explicit nudity used, so it doesn't go past any potentially gratuitous boundary), but even if you don't think or don't like the images used, again that concern shouldn't be concentrated into the deletion of the article, so I don't think it's relevant to bring up nor necessary for me to elaborate further about it in this particular space/discussion. Soulbust (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I forgot to save updates I made to that comment before your response so I apologize for that. You made some good points but I'm still not sure about the ultimate fate of the article unless more editors chime in on their opinions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize honestly. I do understand the goal here is to be constructive overall. Also, sorry if I came across aggressive in any way, I think I might have after re-reading my reply a bit, and if I did, that was not intentional. Soulbust (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I misread the article, it wasn't "a one-off stunt on Twitch to circumvent guidelines", but multiple stunts on Twitch: December 2023 and March 2024, each of which got coverage. Twitch seems to be where she works, and doing stunts is a reasonable first order approximation to what being on Twitch is. That's not BLP1E, that's an oeuvre . --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a free image to the article infobox. (I do that occasionally.) Have no fear - lots of clothing! --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baffling nomination. This clearly meets WP:SUSTAINED.--Laun chba ller 17:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Bee Girls

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering speedy. No BEFORE was made or the numerous existing sources (gBooks, etc) would have been identified. -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "'Invasion of the Bee Girls' Scoring High Across U.S.". Boxoffice. Vol. 103, no. 14. 1973-07-16. p. 14. ProQuest 1476163723.
  The article notes: ""Invasion of the Bee Girls," a science-fiction thriller distributed by Centaur Releasing Corp. of New York, is "buzzing" around the country and ringing up spectacular grosses, according to the distributor. It received an 80-theatre break in the Milwaukee-Chicago-Cincinnati area. The Belair Drive-In, Cicero, Ill., had a holdover week with the second round out-grossing the first. In one week on a 15-theatre break in San Francisco, the film grossed $60,000. Other openings have been announced for New Orleans, Detroit, Dallas, Kansas City and Washington, D.C."
2. Wass, Mike (2023-11-27). "How Drake and 21 Savage Found the 'Perfect Beat' for 'Rich Flex'". Variety. ProQuest 2894039205. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The article notes: "Michael “Finatik” Mule and Isaac “Zac” De Boni, better known as the production duo FnZ, were scouring YouTube for fresh sounds when a clip from the obscure ’70s horror movie “Invasion of the Bee Girls” caught their attention. They turned a portion of the soundtrack into a spooky sample, which would eventually accompany the viral hook — “21, can you do something for me?” — on Drake and 21 Savage’s “Rich Flex,” which is No. 22 on Variety‘s 2023 Hitmakers Top 25."
3. Ebert, Roger (July–August 1978). "Guilty Pleasures". Film Comment. Vol. 14, no. 4. pp. 50–51. ProQuest 210237720.
  The review notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls. A 1973 film of which it could be said that it was the best of its sort up until Infra-Man. William ("Big Bill") Smith, of Hell's Angels on Wheels fame, stars as a G-man tracking down a strange epidemic in which men drop dead of acute coronary attacks. Post-mortems reveal that all the victims were suffering from terminal sexual fatigue at the times of their deaths, and Big Bill's investigation further reveals that all the women in a secret scientific center have used radioactivity to change their cellular structure so that they are, in fact, queen bees. Anitra Ford and Victoria Vetri are the two chief queen bees, but don't realize, alas, that the radioactivity has not merely multiplied their sex drives but also made them sterile. No matter; they spend their off-hours in a sort of Redi-Whip cocoon that not only turns them into bees but gives them a facial and a hairdo at the same time."
4. Lucas, Tim (2007). "10 picks from the grindhouse". Sight & Sound. Vol. 11, no. 6. pp. 25–27. EBSCOhost 25223140.
  The review notes: "Scripted by novelist and future director Nicholas Meyer ('Time after Time'), this was one of the rare films of its time to combine sex, horror, wit and something of a pre-Tarantino trivia sensibility. This randy spoof of 1950s science-fiction movies stars William Smith, a burly actor generally cast as a thug, as a debonair spy named Nell Agar -- referencing 'The Brain from Planet Arous' star John Agar. When various male chemical-research lab workers perish of sexual exhaustion, the two-fisted Smith investigates, assisted by former 'Playboy' centrefold Victoria Vetri. For all its sleaze potential, the film is attractively cast and designed, with Anitra Ford especially memorable as the coolly sexy doctor researching bees and royal jelly as counteragents to ageing. In a classic instance of disreputable distribution practices, the movie was put back on the streets in 1977 under the misleading title 'Graveyard Tramps'."
5. "Invasion of the Bee Girls". Video Watchdog. No. 109. July 2004. pp. 19–20. EBSCOhost 49076875.
  The review notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls is rather an improvement on Roger Corman's Wasp Woman, mixing sci-fi, nudity and soft-core sex angles to fairly interesting and certainly exploitable effect. Business in ballyhoo houses and drive-ins should be okay provided the Centaur release is backed with a strong co-feature. Documentary specialist Denis Sanders (Soul to Soul directs it routinely and Nicholas Meyer's screenplay makes hardly any sense, but as assembled sans screen credit by Enter the Dragon producers Fred Weintraub and Paul N. Heller (who gets "paged" in the film at one point), it moves along at a nice clip, holds the interest throughout and doesn't stint on the nude visuals. ... Even so, the transformation scenes are quite nice, enhanced hugely by Charles Bernstein's eerie music, and the cast is somewhat better than average, with Osmond and Miss Ford registering strongly. Gary Graver's fuzzy cinematography tends to make the production look tackier than it really is."
6. Bennion, Chris (2019-04-16). "What's on TV tonight: Tuesday 16 April, 2019". The Times. p. 36. EBSCOhost 7EH148268192. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The review notes: "This forgotten 1970s exploitation flick is worth a watch for a reason beyond its fantastic title — a surprisingly witty script from newcomer Nicholas Meyer (who would later be Oscar-nominated for The Seven-Per-Cent Solution). In Peckham, California, men are dropping like flies and the reason seems to be sexual exhaustion. No great surprise because the women of the town are being transformed into queen bees, who are sucking the life force out of their menfolk. The answer? “Total. Sexual. Abstinence.” It’s a real pleasure: “Can you cross a man with a horse?” asks a special agent to geneticist. “You’d get a centaur, mythologically speaking.” “Realistically speaking, you’d get a summons for bestiality.” (85min)"
7. Noonan, Bonnie (2015). Gender in Science Fiction Films, 1964–1979: A Critical Study. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-7864-5974-2. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Invasion of the Bee Girls opens with a prominent scientist (married) found dead from extreme exhaustion in a motel room. Julie Zorn, a research librarian who worked closely with him, is accused by the film’s protagonist, government agent Neil Agar and Zorn’s eventual love interest, of being involved in his death. “We balled, and we balled, and we balled ...til he dropped dead,” she sarcastically counters. Her statement is prescient, however, as one man after another is soon found dead in the small town of Peckham. Cause of death is “over-exhaustion in the act of sexual intercourse,’ according to the county sheriff. (One man, a closeted homosexual, escapes this type of death. He is deliberately run over by a car— driven by a spurned Bee Girl—instead.)"
8. Hayward, Philip (2010). "Lust in Space: Science Fiction Themes and Sex Cinema (1960–82)". In Johnson, Bruce (ed.). Earogenous Zones: Sound, Sexuality and Cinema. London: Equinox Publishing. pp. 111–113. ISBN 978-1-84553-318-2. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Half a decade on from the zenith of the 'swinging' (late) Sixties, Invasion of the Bee Girls provides an intense image of predatory female sexuality that can be interpreted as an anxious fantasy reaction to the discourses of 'free love' and female sexual emancipation in circulation in the early 1970s. Indeed, Rebecca Coyle has observed that:
  The technology that empowers the Bee Girls has distinct parallels to the 'technology of the contraceptive pill (introduced in 1960 and widely available from the mid-1960s on). Both transformed women's physiology and changed gender relationships and power. (personal communication, January 2008)
  The film's score emphasizes the separate gender sensibilities of its protagonists, enriches these through allusion and - finally - eludes closure. If anything, its SF elements and, specifically, its use of the Bee Girl motif give it an even greater symbolic 'kick'. Any implicit castration anxieties that may be seen to have pervaded film noir are all the more resonant in Invasion of the Bee Girls, given (actual) bees' mating arrangements, whereby male bees die after mating when their penises shear off during sex in order to deliver the semen the queen bee requires (dark pleasures indeed)."
9. VideoHound's Sci-fi Experience: Your Quantum Guide to the Video Universe. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. 1997. p. 147. ISBN 0-7876-0615-4. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Early in their television career, critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert declared this to be one of their favorite "guilty pleasures" and its reputation was set. Add in the presence of Playmate Victoria Vetri, who has a dedicated following of her own, Anitra "Big Bird Cage" Ford, and a gloriously wacky plot involving the "Queen Bee" and her conquests, and you've got prime Bee-movie camp fun. The murky audio sounds as if it were coming from a drive-in speaker, which ideally is the best way to experience this compellingly quirky and perversely comic thriller. Written by Nicholas Meyer, who later directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. AKA: Graveyard Tramps." The review gives the film three bones.
10. Videohound's Complete Guide To Cult Flicks And Trash Pics. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. 1996. p. 148. ISBN 0-7876-0616-2. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Beware beautiful women in dark sunglasses in this honey of a "B" film. Here's the buzz: William Smith stars as a federal agent investigating a series of mysterious deaths. Anitra Ford, of The Big Bird Cage fame, stars as the queen bee, who recruits unwitting women into her hive of seductresses. Their male victims die of sexual exhaustion. Cliff Osmond, a veteran of Billy Wilder films (The Fortune Cookie, Kiss Me Stupid, The Front Page) costars as the baffled sheriff. The murky audio sounds as if it were coming from a drive-in speaker, which ideally is the best way to experience this compellingly quirky and perversely comic thriller. An early screenplay by Nicholas Meyer, author of The Seven Per Cent Solution, and the director of Time After Time, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. This was released the same year as The Sting. Probably a coincidence. AKA: Graveyard Tramps"
11. Medved, Harry; Medved, Michael (1980). The Golden Turkey Awards: The Worst Achievements in Hollywood History. London: Angus & Robertson. pp. 39–40. ISBN 0-207-14414-1. Retrieved 2025-04-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "As every schoolchild knows, when Queen Bees make love, the males of the species sacrifice their lives along with their seed. This racy premise provides the flimsy basis for Invasion of the Bee Girls, a film that proves that these versatile insects can contribute just as effectively to a softcore porn feature as they can to an absurd disaster epic. This time, the millions of swarming bees create a cocoon of sorts around formerly plain housewives and transform them into glamorous "bee girls." As the science-minded publicity for the film explains, these honey pots "have acquired the genetic characteristics of queen bees whose male partners die following sexual consummation." This exciting new technology has been developed at a government subsidized facility called Brandt Institute, not to be confused with Brand X Institute. Not surprisingly, most of the men associated with this super-secret research operation have recently died from massive coronary attacks which the county coroner cleverly diagnoses as related to sexual fatigue."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Invasion of the Bee Girls to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, more than enough sources above to keep the article valid and improvable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed above are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Breastwick

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find sources that Project Horror uses [1], so that's of no help. This is the only sort of review in a source I could find [2], I'm not sure if that's a RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering speedy given the lack of BEFOREs in various nominations by the same nominator and their barely acceptable rationale. In this case the BEFORE was just reading the page....The film meets Wp:NFILM as the subject of a notable documentary (see NFO section and reception in the article); a redirect to the director should have been considered anyway so that deletion should have been completely off the table. -Mushy Yank. 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens

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

Not a notable film. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Roger Ebert and Russ Meyer, one of their two collaborations. That plus its big profit gets it enough sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage from The Guardian [3], Jonathan Rosenbaum [4], Slant Magazine [5]. hinnk (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above as well as the Los Angeles Times article referenced in the article as well as the book source also referenced in the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Here are the current citations and sports accomplishments that are notable:

North American Powerlifting Federation

Megyn Kelly Show

Open Powerlifting

Alberta Assembly

CBC News

New York Post

NBC 15 News

London Free Press (2)

Fox News (2)

Newsweek

Outkick (2)

CTV News

Sports achievements:

North American Regional Powerlifting Championships

Gold medal – first place 2022 Panama Masters 1

Silver medal – second place 2022 Cayman Islands Masters 1

Nationals

Silver medal – second place 2022 Newfoundland Masters 1

Gold medal – first place 2023 British Columbia Masters 1

Central Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships

Gold medal – first place 2021 Ontario Masters 1

Ontario Provincials

Gold medal – first place 2022 Ontario Open

OPA Masters and Open Provincial Powerlifting Championship

Gold medal – first place 2023 Ontario Masters 1

Reduxx has one single article.

This request is not accurate. QcAmbitious (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the talk page[6]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NATHLETE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE.

A source existing does not make the source notable, nor does it make it reliable. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This page is primarily built on primary sources not independent of the author, or which do not provide any semblance of notability such as the direct links to event placements and her personal details. Primary sources are okay in some circumstances, but in this case all that would be left in early life is a link to her own page cited to a claim that she was born in Ontario. Career beginnings section is exclusively cited to primary sources. So far there is nothing to suggest this person is notable as an athlete, just that their athletic profile exists. If someone made a page for me and cited my USChess profile, that would not make me notable as a chess player - what would is if reliable secondary sources discuss my play.

The 'women's rights advocate' claim is sourced to a Megyn Kelly appearance. Megyn Kelly's show - and syndicated television news generally speaking - is not a reliable source.

The activism section is sourced to a vimeo video by the subject, rebel news (not a reliable source [7]), a link to assembly minutes (Primary source); and then a citelist of a podcast, two WP:UNDUE blogposts, and a link to a primary source from an anti trans advocacy group.

So now we get to the Controversy section.

Hutchinson gained attention after being removed from the "Resilient London: Meet Your Neighbours" exhibit at Museum London, Ontario, due to her comments on transgender athletes.

This claim is cited to 7 sources. CBC News (mostly reliable with the caveat that it's state funded), Reduxx (a hate blog), another blog, the New York Post (Unreliable per WP:NYPOST), a local affiliate of NBC which does not actually contribute to the claim but rather is just a primary source for the comments themselves, London Free Press (A local newspaper), GB news (unreliable, and would be deprecated if it was cited more [8]), and Fox news (unreliable WP:FOXNEWS).

We then have an accidental double cite of the same CBC news article, Newsweek (used to be reliable, but now isn't WP:NEWSWEEK), True North (definitely an unreliable news source and I'm happy to take that to WP:RSN if you want confirmation). We then have Fox News again, Daily Citizen (an anti LGBT advocacy group, not a news source), true north again, and then Fox News a third time. Next is a triplet of sources, the first to a blogpost, the second to Sportskeeda - which I have never heard of but I will assume for the benefit of the doubt that it is fine, and Outkick (which is under FOX News). Outkick again, and the earlier local newspaper from her home town.

The personal life snippet about alcoholism is sourced to Gamesday London (sports section of the earlier local paper) and CTV which is fine.

So after all of that, we are left with:

A single CBC article and potentially a Sportskeeda article covering her comments and the aftermath, and the CTV article about her alcoholism.

That's 2, possibly 3, reliable secondary sources at best to provide notability. This is a local interest story picked up by anti trans advocates, but she is not even notable for that relative to other figures like Riley Gaines. This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Relm (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sportskeeda is considered unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject speaking out about trans women participating in powerlifting, e.g. The London Free Press, CBC News, a local NBC news affiliate, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). There are also two articles before this time in 2022 about the subject's path to powerlifting in The London Free Press and CTV News. I can understand how these could be missed given the multiple non-independent, non-Wikipedia notable references in the article. Nonetheless, the article appears to meet WP:BASIC. Not sure if article meets WP:NATH as there is no Wikipedia policy guidance on this; the subject has placed 1st five times and 2nd two times in competitions. Note that this article cleared the WP:AFC process last month. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were not missed and were discussed in my above post save the Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star (not in the article to my knowledge). The issue is that of the sources which are left with the exception of CTV News and CBC News, these are all local papers - and they're all covering the same two local interest stories about this person. There is a paucity of reliable sources above the local level, and what they cover does not seem to make this individual notable as an athlete or as an activist. In regards to the AFC, the article was declined three times, and the last one in January - the page received no edits between being declined for serious issues and being accepted by a different reviewer last month. Relm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - RelmC, this is a lot to read here. But before I spend too much time reviewing all these sources: you appear to have struck your draftify/delete. You don't say why. Was this because it is assumed as nom.? Or did you strike because you are withdrawing the nomination? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was striked by Nfitz who - correctly as I understand it - striked my vote as the one who nominates is presumed to be voting to delete. Hope this clarifies. Relm (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, thanks. It is correct that the nom. vote is assumed, but I wasn't clear on that being the reason. Now I am. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although I would almost be happier with draftify, based on some concerns about the way the page is presented. If we keep it I would support removing the activism and controversy sections altogether in favour of a couple of sentences in the career section limited to the most salient details unless and until secondary sources are written about that issue. But it is a keep because we appear to be over the threshold for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. But only just, in fact. Sources must be secondary, and I don't think the trans women participation reports qualify. Now, we could get into long discussions about that, but let's be clear: the question of what is primary or secondary in a source depends on the question being asked of it. A source such as this one [9], mentioned above, is primary for the matter of report (that a trans athlete saw a backlash) but secondary in any background given about Hutchinson. But it doesn't give us any significant background. The statements made by Hutchinson are primary reporting regarding the matter that is the occasion of the article. To put that another way, what can we say about Hutchinson from that and similar articles? We are writing a biography, and if the only thing the source adds is that she said something relating to the matter of the trans competitor, then that is primary reporting - and WP:BLP is clear that we should be waiting for secondary sourcing for that. Nevertheless there are other articles, particularly those that talk about her overcoming addiction, that tell us significantly more about her and from which an article can be written. Indeed, that was why she was in the Museum London exhibit in the first place. Having said all that, there is indeed an issue that much of the coverage is local. She is an inspiring local interest story. I am not presonally convinced she is very notable beyond that, but I believe the Wikipedia consensus would generally find someone with this amount of coverage crosses the line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

Partial recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-wrong yesterday--having looked through Google Books and Wikipedia Library more thoroughly I think the two sources currently cited in the article (Jenness and Singer) are the best ones available. Both of those cover the organization in some detail though. They clear the bar of "significant coverage." Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Jenness's study I did not find any reference to organization. In Singer's book how can we be sure that he refers to organization? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a reference in the book of Jenness's, with the old name, so I was confused. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean? If you get the book and look on the cited page you’ll see where he refers to them. Actually I think that book has more in depth coverage that isn’t available in full on Google Books. Prezbo (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Υou must demonstrate that there is coverage from reliable secondary sources, citing specific books or studies. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find reliable secondary sources independent of the organisation. I don't think it's notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done some WP:BEFORE search and found sources but the significance of coverage is rather weak and I don't feel confident it passes NORG. Not significant coverage such as https://www.ninertimes.com/news/inside-the-shadowland/article_e218ce10-efd2-5975-b28c-edbbf582d734.html this one. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more views about the cited sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Pinay

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

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Philippines, and Georgia (U.S. state). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you interpret this person’s one-episode guest spot on Skin Wars and their run on RuPaul’s Drag Race to make them a notable entertainer, despite a lack of notability-establishing coverage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you several times now to leave me alone. I will not be engaging with you further so please do not ask me questions or post on my talk page again. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not a reasonable ask when it comes to AfD, and I will not be avoiding your votes in this discussion. You are free to not reply, obviously. Biography subjects need WP:SIGCOV, and this subject does not meet that standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reasonable thing to say in a public AfD discussion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In real life the subject is a friend of several friends of mine and, since my partner is Filipino-American, I have found that both the LGBTQ and pinoy worlds are very small and interconnected. So I'm not going to !vote. I feel obligated to point out that the subject was eliminated after the 4th episode of RuPaul's Drag Race, but they also have tens of thousands of followers on social media. Discuss amongst yourselves. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 5. Not prominent enough for stand alone article. Reads like a promo. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect makes sense to me too ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that being a member of the Haus of Edwards in addition to the Drag Race and Skin Wars stint qualify them under the first criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. I think there's room to give the article a badly needed touchup, but outright deletion may not be called for. If I am misunderstanding NENTERTAINER please clarify. Relm (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Templates, Redirects for deletion

none at this time

Miscellany for deletion

Proposed deletions

Deletion review