Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/LGBTQ+ studies

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to LGBTQ+. 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|LGBTQ+ studies|~~~~}} 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 LGBTQ+. 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/LGBTQ+ studies/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies.

LGBTQ+

Portsmouth Pride

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

It appears to only be subject to minor amounts of coverage, and mostly just a few news stories about the most recent event. However, I'm only finding some local sources when I look for anything regarding Portsmouth Pride. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, LGBTQ+ studies, United Kingdom, and England. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a keep. At risk of "other-stuff-exists", we have quite a few articles on individual city pride events, see for example [1]. Many, for example that for Norwich Pride are well-written articles of considerable interest to a lot of readers. Obviously all city pride marches will attract mostly local news interest, because by definition they are local events. But they are often very major local events, ones involving a significant proportion of the population of a major city, and featuring in all the local news outlets, BBC etc.; it's not analogous to the "New Pizza Restaurant Opens in High Street" genre of local news article. It's also hard to know how else to cover local prides. The overall articles are already too long. Pride (LGBTQ culture) is about the parent movement and very US-centric. Pride parade is already huge and has the most enormous subsection on events per country, truly awful! And that's without including more than a fraction of the information found in the individual articles. Pride celebrations in the United Kingdom is little more than a list-and-introduction, pointing at the individual city/area pride march articles. I think we need to keep the individuals because there's nowhere else to put them, and they are a natural trickle-down from the global articles, for readers who wish to follow up on the specifics in a particular area. Elemimele (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know! I think that the UK pride celebrations article is so short makes it a good candidate for housing information like this! But that's just my 2 cents on an alternative. I was also on the fence about notability here, it seemed to me like it was flying just under the threshold. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though note my personal bias toward keeping it as I created this article. While the nomination is reasonable, Elemimele has put into words quite a lot of my nebulous thoughts that went into my decision to create it. I did want to include this Guardian article that has a section about Penny Mordaunt and the charity, though at the time found it too complex to add in and honestly gave up. I should have included it. I also missed this Telegraph article. These, in my opinion, would push it over the edge in terms of notability, though feel free to disagree. For articles that are relegated to BBC/Guardian/local news coverage, it would be great to establish how much of this limited type of coverage would be needed for inclusion because most articles about Pride events in the UK have this type of source base. Please let me know. Thank you! Beejamjam (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Youth

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

Cannot find the significant coverage that would be necessary to establish the organization, even on Greek Wikipedia. I tried looking through Google and Google News and didn't find anything of use. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and Greece. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando LGBT+

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

I've checked for sources, but I've not found anything that could meet WP:ORG. Everything has from potentially skewed or primary sources, near full republishings of press releases, or is brief. I checked Google and Google News and came up empty handed, but maybe someone might find something in Greek, but I'm skeptical of it. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Organizations, and Behavioural science. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Docmoates (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Chris

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

No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Only sources that come close to in-depth are about the Twitter case, but the article still fails WP:BLP1E because the case was not significant. – MW_(t•c) 22:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Discrimination, Law, LGBTQ+ studies, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Australia, and Canada. Bridget (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chris Elston aka Billboard Chris has received widespread serious press since 2020, with articles on his activities in Canada in the CBC: [2], [3], and Ottawa Citizen: [4], and widespread international coverage about his case in Australia. There appears to be plenty of other sources out there and some usable academic publications on Google Scholar: [5]. Thriley (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC sources seem like WP:ROUTINE coverage of events Elston organized/attended, not coverage of the man himself. The Ottawa Citizen article is much better in coverage, but I think we need a stronger WP:THREE to keep. The Google Scholar sourcing is also quite poor — several of the top results appear to be self published, [6] this one is the best academic coverage I'm seeing and it's fairly middling. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Guardian article, Vancouver Sun, CBC, Sydney Morning Herald articles all seem to indicate sustained coverage and not just about the Twitter post (also the JK Rowling billboard). He gets in-depth coverage about himself, which seems sufficient for WP:GNG Oblivy (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The coverage here is shockingly bad for how much of it there is, there's almost no biographical coverage of the the man himself. WP:BLP1E/WP:1E do not apply given there are numerous events he's covered in across RS. I think he slides by under WP:BASIC given the pure quantity of shallow coverage, but I don't feel particularly good about it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the article should probably be moved to "Chris Elston," most coverage mentions the nickname a single time but generally refers to him by his full name. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these comments are correct, I think, although "shockingly bad" is probably a bit much. There doesn't have to be a ton of biographical detail to support an article, but what there is is about his activism and that seems sufficient for GNG.
I'd support a name change to Chris Elston if the article is kept. Oblivy (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Coverage is not great for a WP:BLP but meets the criteria for WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is not good enough given that this is a BLP and the controversial subject matter, which necessitates a higher bar for meeting GNG. The Ottawa Citizen piece is good but the rest is not enough, the rest is just individual protests. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Better to know about all sorts of "political" ie "activist" freaks out there and what they may be plotting than not to have a clue and be very surprised when they come at you as a metro train out of a tunnel. But needs more details with links, methinks. Annabelleigh (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaRusical (RuPaul's Drag Race episode)

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

Despite just having moved from draft, I do not believe that the episode meets notability for a standalone article required by WP:NEPISODE. The "Episode" and "Production" sections just explain what happens in the episode, what the contestants are wearing, etc., with no analysis whatsoever (or even references for the "Fashion" subsection) and the coverage in the "Reception" section is minor. See recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RuPaul's Drag Race franchise episodes and notability and the earlier one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39#RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes. --wooden superman 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 09:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This previously went to AfD and survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PharmaRusical; the later draftification came after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#RuPaul's Drag Race franchise episodes and notability, and the return to mainspace was through AfC and not a unilateral contesting. There is separately an RM to move the article back to the undisambiguated titlePharmaRusical, which had been a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 10 in the interim. I note all this for the record and have no opinion on any of this (beyond that there is an obvious alternative to deletion in redirecting this to RuPaul's Drag Race season 10 as well). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. This article is part of an ongoing effort to have entries about RuPaul's Drag Race episodes restored to the main space, per the discussion referenced by User:Wcquidditch above. This episode has received in-depth reviews by multiple reliable sources and the article is long enough to justify a fork from the season article. Here are just a few of the sources confirming significant coverage in independent and reliable sources:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The A.V. Club				✔ Yes
The New York Times				✔ Yes
Vulture				✔ Yes
Metro Weekly				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The article was kept at AfD previously and accepted at Articles for Creation just two days ago. This article should be expanded and improved, not deleted, and I will continue working to get RPDR entries placed in the main space and promoted to Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 09:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on your talk page, the other articles that have been recreated and submitted through AfC seem to have something exceptional about them, they've won awards, etc., and I would suggest an award winning episode should usually meet any notability issues. But I'm just not seeing it with this one. There is nothing remarkable about this episode, in fact, looking at the reviews, it seems it might be a bit mediocre. WP:NEPISODE sets a pretty high bar for individual episodes. To use an example for scripted television, look at how few Friends episodes meet this standard. All I'm seeing here is WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing that sets it apart. --wooden superman 09:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 10:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not going to !vote, seeing as I accepted the draft.) Keep — GNG is very likely met, as there enough WP:42 sources that establish notability. I might be reading it wrong, but your argument for deletion is WP:TNT, but the issues you raise with the article would be pretty easy to fix. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Olliefant (she/her) 17:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source table above has more than enough evidence that GNG is met. TheInevitables (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article is solid. Moondragon21 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no indicaiton of sustained covereage in a whole load on manufactured outrage from both sides. ~2025-38159-71 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed nomination for TA, no opinion at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS Remikipedia (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this is a dumb thing to be outraged over, but that doesn't determine if we keep or delete an article. For better or worse, there is a lot of national and international coverage, enough to indicate the topic is notable. If it dies down without any additional coverage, I think the decision to keep or possibly merge could be considered, but I don't see a good merge target. If Fulnecky can parlay this "controversy" into a career on the right-wing outrage circuit, I think it would end up getting merged into her bio, but that is speculation. (t · c) buIdhe 15:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues to get coverage, I could see the 'Education' section of the Transgender rights movement page being a possible merge target. There are some good points on why this may not be appropriate for its own article after reviewing GNG/SNG criteria, but I do not believe that this information has no value as it applies to larger movements. At any rate, a keep for now decision lets us submit a more informed AfD later. I think that would be the best route forward for this article. Everdread (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Education, Religion, and Oklahoma. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Discrimination. jolielover♥talk 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability per coverage is clearly sustained. Additionally, I’d like to note that this user has been povpushing and edit warring (four reverts against two editors) on Girlguiding based on a stated belief that allowing trans girls to be girlscouts is not sensible,[7] while displaying a *very* thorough understanding of wiki policies, procedures, and informal etiquette entirely inconsistent with a temp account.[8] Snokalok (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too early to conclude that coverage is "clearly sustained"; the incident in question happened less than a week ago. Also, the nominator's activity on other articles is unrelated to whether this article is sufficiently notable. Andrew11374265 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, combined with the fact that they sockpuppeted this thread to increase the delete count, it suggests that this AfD was not filed in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the TA wasn't in good faith, but this didn't strike me as something that was going to have lasting notability, so I was willing to copy it over. I'm not convinced it's a delete, but neither am I sure it's worth keeping. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; clearly notable on its own. The fact that TPUSA is backing it will likely keep it relevant until at least the end of the year, and possibly beyond that. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is worth keeping, at least until coverage of the topic dies down. I know I found this article helpful enough when I learned of the topic today that I'm sure it will help others. Fognar777 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Fognar777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/wait, this seems to have plenty of coverage for this point in the WP:NEVENT cycle. If this ends up being falling off the face of the earth in a few weeks, it could feasibly be renominated. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even two weeks ago, that's the news cycle reporting on news. We'll need a bit more sustained coverage, over a longer time period. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS.~2025-38213-51 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Sock strike, same small range as ~2025-38159-71. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of the time I write this. Regardless of the ultimate result of this AfD, while it's ongoing the article is going to stay up for at least several days. During that time, coverage of the event could rise to a level where I'd be satisfied with calling it "sustained"; however, at the moment, I don't believe it meets the WP:NOTNEWS standard. (Politicians, even those at the highest levels of the US government, as well as groups like TPUSA complain about things all the time. Some publications, in turn, summarize and/or opine on those complaints. It is my view that in this day and age, that is not sufficient to warrant an entire article for every such instance.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and LGBTQ+ studies. Bridget (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget, we had those already, those pages now have two entries on this afd. It may not matter that much, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates have been removed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! My bad. Bridget (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I feel like this will be NOTNEWS in six months. It's just people getting upset, with a transgender person involved. Had the instructor not been transgender, this wouldn't be news. Why is a student upset over getting zero on a paper newsworthy? This happens all the time in the world of education; we remove the "transgender", there isn't a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Radical left" isn't news-worthy. It's a dog whistle. Universities are by nature there to provoke thought and debate. This would be similar to a student claiming their black instructor was *insert words here* if this was earlier in the Century. This is even tagged under "transgender topics" here in Wiki; this would be more suitable under an "education in the USA" tag. The focus is on the transgender individual, not the essay. This is difficult to keep NPOV in the first place and this isn't really about a transgender individual, it's about a person's reaction to someone else who's different than they are and how they feel superior to them as a result. Frankly every time someone cries "radical left" or gets mad at a transgender person, that's the focus of the news. I don't think every time someone gets involved in a transphobia incident, that it gets an article. Perhaps TOOSOON at this point, we don't even know what the results are. The prof is "on leave" and the student gets their 15 minutes of fame. If there is some sort of lasting consequence, then we could have an article; does the prof get sued and it goes to the Supreme Court, is there some sort of physical violence involved and people get hurt/die, etc. Until then, this isn't really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current delete rationales, which more or less boil down to I don't think this will be notable yet would seem like a clear instance of WP:RAPID, I don't see a compelling reason to entertain this right now. If this won't be notable in 6 months, the logical time to discuss this would be in 6 months, not now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, no, I've looked into my crystal ball and it tells me that we should discuss this in 6 months if anyone still wants to. If y'all want to create some more explicit rules on exactly what to do in the early months after an event, then feel free to go do that. On our current guidelines, keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS, TOOSOON, take your pick. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here but this makes sense to me- why not set a soft deadline to determine notability? TrumanSwango (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wait for now - this occurred only a week or so ago and that's not enough time (WP:RAPID) to develop any sustained coverage. It can be re-nominated in the future if there's no lasting/sustained coverage, but for now there's enough sources to work with and it's too soon to delete per WP:LASTING. HurricaneZeta^C 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite sad that stuff like this even reaches article status on Wikipedia nowadays- utter WP:NOTNEWS, and the majority of the sources are current-events commentary articles, which are not really representative of "sustained coverage". A university student writing a transphobic essay and proceeding to be angry over receiving a bad grade from her professor is not notable under any circumstance at all ever, period. Electricmemory (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — as of now, this isn’t notable enough. It’s manufactured outrage from both sides, and it’s more than likely going to be forgotten within a week or two. Draft it for now, see if it has larger coverage, then publish it if it does. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) WP:NOTNEWS is for routine coverage, which this is not. When was the last time a US university TA was fired for what appears to have been blatant religious discrimination? 2) reverse-CRYSTAL problem, assuming that this won't be referenced in the future. It's impossible to plausibly say "no sustained coverage" when an event has just happened without assuming that something will die after a news cycle or two. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatant religious discrimination"? She assigned an essay reviewing recent reading, the student handed in an essay reviewing her views of the Bible. She didn't do the assignment, and another teacher backed the original grade up. Then they suspended the teacher anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Most people seem to have the idea in their heads that if a teacher is suspended/fired it must've been for a valid reason. This was not so. Electricmemory (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, putting name to paper and turning in a non-plagiarized essay garners some points, even if failing to address the original question, wouldn't you both agree? Or have either of you actually graded college level work? I have. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this discussion about whether this article should be on Wikipedia. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a valid alternative to deletion given that there is coverage, but it is too soon to determine any potential long-term significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to my initial !vote to say that I'd also be open to a merge if a suitable target is found. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The essay deserved a failing grade (maybe not a 0), but conservatives, including politicians are calling for terminations and investigations, [9] so WP:SUSTAINED will likely be met, especially since it has already made the NYT before all of that happened. WP:RAPID seems to apply and it would be best to revisit in a few weeks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this case has received a lot of media coverage. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing routine about a college pre-med junior getting a TA placed on administrative leave, receiving a Fox News spotlight, and "earning" a participation certificate from the Oklahoma House of Representatives...all over bombing an essay for not following instructions. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nature of the reporting and the amount of media coverage reasonably satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements in my opinion. Trey Wainman (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insubstantial coverage stemming from the nowadays typical right-wing media ragebait cycle. If it turns into something with more substance like the Riley Gaines case then sure, but I do not think it is at that level yet. Curbon7 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bunch of primary source media reports based on outrage as opposed to any long-term significance. Secondary sources addressing the impact of this on religious freedom and university degrees would make this merit an article but none of that seems to exist currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. In today's weird and truly awful political climate, having pop-up articles like this one are a way to direct and consolidate traffic from interested editors and readers. We can decide down the road whether the subject has true long-term notability... remember, WP:NORUSH. The fact is that people are visiting this page, and I don't see a better article or subheading to send them to, nor can I advocate sending them to a draft article. As a worst-case scenario, we are collecting sources. TNstingray (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. People are already forgetting about this. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much per Curbon above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I say keep, but I am not sure how you want to organize such matters. It seems to be about a student who is a christian and expressed her POV and did not do the homework so she ended up with a 0. She complained to this and that and eventually politicians got involved who expressed their religious views. It is a classic religion vs LGBT thing that happens in the USA. I think it should be documented in some form for future generations to remember the 20 th and 21 th century. It is what it is. This is how life is in 2025. Vmelkon (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News sources say its turning into a discrimination lawsuit, and given her mother is said to be a lawyer, then given the political publicity already at early stage, this isn't just another tiny storm in a teacup. Sjl197 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Article suffers from recentism, this is just a news story that is being pumped for the time being and won't even be remembered in a few months' time. Mgasparin (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and as an event, not (yet) WP:SUSTAINED. The lasting significance of this is not established. It looks like a storm in a teacup owing to political nonsense. As and when it gets written about because of some actual permanent impact, the page can be written. Will that happen in the time it can staye in draft? Unlikely, I'd say, as there is nothing much to see here. However it is possible, owing to the political involvement, so draftify is a suitable WP:ATD, but failing that this should be deleted. In particular WP:NOPAGE pertanins. This is something that would get a sentence or two in a larger article about, say, the politicisation of academia or articles on culture wars etc. It is not an encyclopaedic subject in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical

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

Fails WP:NEPISODE. --wooden superman 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and LGBTQ+ studies. --wooden superman 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NEPISODE episode does not meet notability requirements, coverage is limited to routine summaries and recaps without significant independent analysis discussion or lasting encyclopedic relevance. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. This article is part of a series of five articles nominated for deletion unnecessarily, in my opinion. I have experience writing Drag Race episode articles, including some with Good status such as "And the Rest Is Drag", so I'd like to think I have a decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry. Like episode in the U.S., I think many (but not all) episodes of this series are notable and I would encourage article expansion, not deletion. It is hard to focus on all at once, but I'm working to expand Rats: The Rusical, Lairy Poppins: The Rusical, Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical, and the others, as I have time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with draftifyng, but WP:NEPISODE sets quite a high bar when it comes to scripted television, and to my view reality television should have an even higher bar. I just picked a US episode at random, and there is no way that "Frock the Vote!" is anywhere close to passing notability either to my view. I think the issue here is that you don't have the "decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry" that you claim. --wooden superman 03:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Frock the Vote!" is also clearly notable. I'm moving on and would appreciate if you'd stop tagging articles I've worked on for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, it's just trivial and routine coverage. Same as "Dragazines" from the same season, along with many others. And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop adding non notable content to Wikipedia so I didn't have to nominate it, or at least accept it when the content is redirected. --wooden superman 05:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 6#ep55. In general, I look for at least two sources with significant coverage of the episode to meet GNG and NEPISODE (this could be reviews, production info, etc.). Looking through the current sources:
- 1 and 8 are recaps with social media comments; I would not consider this significant coverage.
- 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 focus on cast members, not the episode.
- 6 is a primary source.
- 10 is trivial given that it covers so many episodes.

That leaves only 2 as potential significant coverage (and to be honest, my rule of thumb is that only reviews from outlets with Wikipedia articles are significant, since anyone can make a website to write reviews). I generally support more episode articles, but I just don't see enough coverage here. However, the title is a reasonable redirect term (though it should be moved to "Pop of the Tops – Live: The Rusical"). RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support drafting en masse all these pointless Drag Race episode stubs and later evaluating each one before being accepted. Most of the Drag Race episode articles Another Believer wrote are just bare bones episode summary articles. Whether or not those episodes have enough sources and content to justify their stand-alone article is irrelevant when their current state (and often times, years in the same state) is better handled by the episode list. Dragazines is an example of such (bad) article. In 2025 we should have a higher bar for accepting articles and these pointless stubs are not it. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the variety of different publications in the references providing coverage for this episode specifically seems to meet the guidelines, although arguing against what was said above about what counts as significant coverage. Along with the majority of drag race related episodes recently turned into redirects, i believe this one is details and sourced well enough in comparison to remain HighlandFacts (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 6#ep55 – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]