Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/LGBTQ+ studies

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:
  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|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:
watch

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

LGBTQ+

Petticoating


Petticoating (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)

I propose merging to Sissy because there is a there is also a lot of overlap between the actions and topics already. There is also a lack of proper cites meaning there are already issues with the page itself. Itsirlpidge (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Although I see a case for the standalone article if it was better written and sourced as it stands, it's not suitable for its own article. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ marketing


LGBTQ marketing (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)
Information Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Moved from Talk:History of LGBTQ marketing § Merging
 – FaviFake (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Merging to History of LGBTQ marketing

There's an issue with the article LGBTQ marketing. It has too little differentiation from the rainbow capitalism article and there's also much too duplication with history of LGBTQ marketing. I don't think it's wise for this to continue existing in this current form and think it would be much better merged into the history article (and add whatever from here isn't there yet). --~2026-36575-40 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Firing of Junia Joplin


Firing of Junia Joplin (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)

Per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The article fails the majority of the WP:NEVENT criteria: it did not "act as a precedent or catalyst for something else" (WP:LASTING), "have significant impact over a wide region" (WP:GEOSCOPE), or "receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" (WP:PERSISTENCE), aside from a blip of further coverage when a lawsuit was filed the next year (with no seeming coverage of the lawsuit's outcome). A biographical article would fail WP:BLP1E. No obvious redirect target. Astaire (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: I do not consider this to be merely a routine employment dispute, a short-lived news item, or a straightforward WP:BLP1E case. The article concerns a public controversy that received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including national and international media, and the later civil claim generated further coverage beyond the initial dismissal. That weighs in favour of WP:GNG and against treating the topic as purely ephemeral under WP:NOTNEWS. The article is also not solely about one person's firing. The notability appears to arise from the wider public issues raised by the event, including transgender clergy, religious employment, discrimination law, church governance, and civil rights protections in Canada. That gives the topic broader encyclopaedic context under WP:NEVENT, particularly where coverage discusses the wider significance rather than only reporting the bare fact of dismissal. I accept that the article should be handled carefully because it involves a living person, so WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME-type caution about tone, sourcing, and disputed allegations is important. However, deletion is not the only way to address those concerns. If there is excessive detail, weak sourcing, or undue focus on personal matters, that can be dealt with through editing, trimming, and neutral rewriting under WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. I would therefore support cleanup, tightening, or renaming if editors think the current framing is too narrow, but I do not think deletion is appropriate on the current sourcing. The subject appears to have enough independent coverage and broader significance to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Kirbylegal (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Edited: 15:17 BST for grammar and format
    The article concerns a public controversy that received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including national and international media Yes, that is the WP:DIVERSE criterion of WP:NEVENT, but there are four other criteria to account for. And as I discuss above, it fails the majority of these criteria.
    The article is also not solely about one person's firing. The notability appears to arise from the wider public issues raised by the event, including transgender clergy, religious employment, discrimination law, church governance, and civil rights protections in Canada. You may feel that the case "raises wider public issues", but which sources agree with this framing? These are the sources in the article which cover the 2021 lawsuit: They are all straightforward, matter-of-fact reporting of the lawsuit's contents. There is no analysis that puts events into context (WP:DEPTH) regarding the legal background, no mention of how this could be an important Canadian civil rights case, and not even a single source regarding the lawsuit's outcome. Also see WP:PERSISTENCE: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article... If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance. All the secondary sources in the article are either from immediately after the subject was fired, or immediately after the lawsuit. Astaire (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The event generated genuine but transient coverage across a single news cycle in July 2020, with a smaller wave when a lawsuit was filed in 2021. No verifiable outcome of that lawsuit appears in any indexed source, so WP:LASTING is not satisfied. Coverage did not persist beyond the immediate news cycle and the incident had no demonstrable impact on policy, law, or broader practice. A biographical article on Joplin would fail WP:BLP1E. No viable redirect target exists. MissBVCC (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: WP:EVENTCRIT states "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact or were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." I believe that this event's coverage on Fox News in July 2020 and Global News in August 2021 demonstrates diverse international sources (WP:GEOSCOPE) and WP:SUSTAINED, alongside re-analysis.
WP:LASTING states "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." If this article fails this criteria, it does not inherently mean it is non-notable. The same goes for if WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply, which states "notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established".
As McCarthy Tétrault is representing the subject, would it be possible for this to be covered on their article? AnotherAnonUsername (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Gay beat


Gay beat (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)

I propose merging to Cruising for sex because the majority of the article is already included in cruising for sex page, or not relevant specifically to Australia. The George Michael details are replicated across both pages and included in Gay cruising in England and Wales Sleepytimecat (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk) 21:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Anette Mäletjärv


Anette Mäletjärv (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)

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that she's been a civil servant and an unelected candidate in a parliamentary election, neither of which are automatic notability freebies: civil servants are not "inherently" notable just because they exist as people with jobs, and have to establish passage of WP:GNG on their sourceability, while unelected candidates for political office get articles only if they were already notable enough for articles for other reasons as it is.
But the sourcing here is not getting her over GNG: this is mainly referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the exception of one news article about her in a reliable source, which is not enough all by itself.
For an Estonian figure, furthermore, it doesn't bode well for her notability that she doesn't have an article on the Estonian Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Estonia. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for your initial review @Bearcat and @CherryPie94 of Anette Mäletjärv. I really appreciate it. I have added additional news sources and quotes to try to improve the notability claim. This blp was created as the person showed up in the wikitool, Paulina as having Wikidata but no article under the filters 'non-binary' and 'Estonians' Mustleib (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keeping the article maintains consistency with the existing data footprint on Wikidata. Article created because there was a pre-existing Wikidata entry from 2024 for the subject which I found using the Wikitool, Paulina . I have expanded the article since it has been flagged for deletion. The subject is well-represented in a variety of Estonian news sources and I have translated more source quotes from Estonian news sources into English and referenced them in the article. Mustleib (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The existence of a Wikidata item does not automatically require the existence of a corresponding Wikipedia article, just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
You are entirely right, @Bearcat. I have only mentioned this to address your initial concern about a missing Vikipeedia/et-wiki page, since the Wikidata footprint serves a similar purpose in showing that editors have been tracking the subject on another wiki project. However, since Wikipedia evaluates topics on their own merit, I have included additional news sources to show that the person is notable within Estonia independent of any entries on another wiki. Mustleib (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative


Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative (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)

Sometimes organisations are difficult to determine their notability, however you see a clearly non notable one when there are no secondary or at least reliable sources to back up the contents herein. Bearing this in mind, such resonates with this article as if fails WP:ORGCRIT which, for me, should there be WP:ATD at all, should never be considered. Nevertheless that doesn't mean it cannot be notable someday but it's obviously not for this time. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I adjusted some of the promotional language and added some citations, and I think the organization is borderline notable - there's at least some secondary independent coverage. I searched Wikipedia Library's default EBSCO database, Google Books, and JSTOR, but haven't exhaustively searched scholarly databases, so there could be more secondary coverage available. Note that another article was recently merged here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated. If the organization doesn't seem sufficiently notable, a good alternative to deletion would be to merge this material to the article about the founder of the organization, Akudo Oguaghamba. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Dreamyshade, can we see the citations you added in order to review if it is notable for Wikipedia. Again, why presume that since you didn't find exclusively scholarly articles, then there must have to be secondary ones, and therefore, per your statement, it is a reason to weak keep the article? Who cares for this AFD?
    Analysing the above shows there is indeed no standalone chance for this article if not to merge it into the founders. But I wonder why you will first lay a biased arguement before leaning to an WP:ATD? SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 02:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    Everyone can look at the article history to see the citations I added.
    Since you've made ten comments on this AfD, in addition to your nomination statement, I encourage reviewing Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and LGBTQ+ studies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep or possibly merge with Akudo Oguaghamba per Dreamyshade's statement. The article has decent sourcing although it could be improved, and this nomination has already inspired some improvements. The fairly recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Pride Accelerated decision to merge content into this article should be considered and given some weight here, as well. That discussion had low participation and was not explicitly evaluating the notability of this article, but editors there clearly did not find fault with this article and saw it as an appropriate place to cover content that should be covered somewhere on en-wiki. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    Because the editors of that deletion discussion might have been in the quandary of saving an article, and so, they found this. Moreso when the so-called ATD now becomes non notable (of course as this one), we have an option of deletion. When you argue merg again to the parent article i.e. the foundere, I see a good point there but what actually made Akudo Oguaghamba notable is this organisation, and her article should have covered muc of this one.. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 23:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    This orgnization made its founder notable, but the organization itself is not notable? Interesting. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Myceteae, yes, an organisation can actually be the influence of its founder and still may meet not WP:STANDALONE. It may have been you're lean on AFD. Maybe. Because so many articles have actually been merged to its founder. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 02:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    I assume you mean WP:PAGEDECIDE, since we are not discussing any standalone lists here. (Hey look, I do know a thing or two about AFD!) You didn't make a PAGEDECIDE argument, you just said this organization is not notable but its founder is notable and was made so because of her work with this organization. I was trying to follow your logic but if you were actually intending make a PAGEDECIDE argument, that would make sense, and is consistent with my !vote. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Myceteae, you said for this AFD, ...That discussion had low participation and was not explicitly evaluating the notability of this article, but editors there clearly did not find fault with this article and saw it as an appropriate place to cover content that should be covered somewhere on en-wiki. Really? Let me tell you: they didn't find fault with this article because 1. They are not interested here 2. They probably didn't care to check here but presupposes that there must be an ATD to whatsoever non AfD-ed article, in this sense, this one 3. Or that they are blind (but this is out of bound b/c I consider all editor intelligible). SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 02:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, that is exactly what I meant to convey. I said the prior AFD should be considered and given some weight, not that it should determine the outcome here. I then acknowledged a couple reasons why it may not be persuasive or applicable here. I'm so glad you ultimately understood what I was saying, despite seeming to think I did not understand the implications of my own statements. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Lean keep. Would support merge as suggested by Dreamyshade and seconded by Myceteae. Also, per WP:BEFORE, nominating a very new article for deletion instead of allowing time for growth seems premature; a clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion first would have been better. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 01:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Pikkupapupata since clean-up tag and/or article talk page discussion are not possible because a BEFORE shows nothing notable about this organisation, what claims then are you holding to argue against the nominator, or importantly, for the keep of this article? Sources? That is what is an AFD discussion and not causality case. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    WP:BEFORE is clear about what to consider and steps to take before nominating an article for deletion. I don't see evidence that such steps and considerations were taken before this nomination, and I fail to understand how those steps were 'impossible'.
    And my initial reply to this discussion was clear enough. Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 15:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    That is nevertheless a reason to argue for keep. Unless you know not the value of AFD, show sources therefore to prove that no BEFORE (of sources), irrespective of time, was done. SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 18:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
    A clean-up tag is always possible. While WP:DILIGENCE can find sources to show that notability is achieved, any failure to find such is not proof that such sources do not exist, as not all reliable sources are online, nor are all online sources indexed appropriately by the key online tools. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG. No independent sources seem to cover it significantly in-depth. It can be merged with Akudo Oguaghamba. I'm not sure whether the merge target is notable. But for now, the organization is at least not notable for a standalone article. — Raihanur (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • At this point, I am supporting merging into Akudo Oguaghamba.SafariScribeEdits! Talk! 19:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge selectively, as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Queer Insurrection and Liberation Army


Queer Insurrection and Liberation Army (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)

I attempted to reach out to the creator of this stub about expanding it further, but they did not respond to me. Upon looking into the source material myself, I found very little. Most sources I found from the period uncritically repeat the group's press release, without providing any further detail. The most significant coverage I could find was a very critical opinion piece from Razan Ghazzawi, which condemns the group's announcement for a variety of reasons. I found very few retrospective assessments of the group, but the ones that do exist seem to all conclude that it was little more than a publicity stunt designed to attract western media attention and support for the SDF, and that it was otherwise militarily insignificant.

I'm coming away completely unconvinced that this meets our general notability guidelines for organisations. If I were to write an expanded version of this article, it would consist of little more than parroting the group's announcement statement followed by a series of reactions and criticisms, with little information in the way of what the group actually did (if they did anything at all). Regrettably, I'm having to submit this article for discussion. As an alternative to deletion, I would suggest redirecting to the relevant section on the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces, which can be expanded as needed. Grnrchst (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being a short stub isn't a reason to delete. Its formation was covered by Al Jazeera, Vice and a peer-reviewed Insight Turkey article. Multiple independent reliable sources meeting WP:GNG. Just expand it. Onatic (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
    Please point out to me where I suggested it being a stub was a reason for deletion. That it was a stub was why I looked into sources with a view to expanding it before nominating this, but I found nothing of significance. The Al Jazeera op-ed depicts it as an orientalist publicity stunt and the Insight article literally calls it "irrelevant". This isn't significant coverage, it's pretty damning. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)