Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

Pederasty (radio program)

Pederasty (radio program) (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)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is an episode of a non-notable radio show that received some news coverage for no more than a single week in July 1975 (and then a single news piece in 2025). A single, likely unreliable news source is not enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage for this episode to leave the WP:NOTNEWS territory. Even if we view this as a polemic event, it would never pass WP:EVENTCRIT.

Just to add more context, that 2025 source relies on a YouTube video uploaded by economics conspiracy theorist John Adams. Other videos on that same YouTube channel of his include "The 1994 Conspiracy Theory which Exposed Corruption and Evil", " A Month To Stop The Great Bank Conspiracy!", "How To Free Your Mind From The Matrix", you get the idea. My point is that even the reliability of this source is questionable, and the fact that it came out almost together with the Daily Mail and "cultural marxism" conspiracy slop website The Unshackled just gives you some context. This looks like a WP:RGW article . V. S. Video (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Australia. V. S. Video (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep Well, there's this archive DOT ph/yoCRS, or here if it won't load . Not sure we have THREE, but it's another source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Shaky reliability of sources. Haz215 (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The thing that is being relied on is just that Adams posted a recording of the show. His views on it are not part of the article at all. Thisbe Schultz (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Strong keep I think this is actually an enormously significant program that deserves its own article, because 1. the ABC aired interviews with pedophiles without condemning them or handing them over to police; 2. the issue was treated as a "let's hear out both sides of this issue" which is insane; 3. the reception from the ABC after the fact was "well, it's in the public interest for us to do this" which is also now insane; 4. the ABC still have not apologised for this show despite how much values have changed; 6. it has remained in the public discourse ever since because of its infamy, and; 7. conspiracy theorists often talk about it as part of their worldview and its good to have an overview of the reality of this show on wikipedia, clearly verified and factual, rather than an inflated version scraped together from random sources. For what its worth I do not agree with the cookers and I am not one of them, but this did actually happen and it deserves to be on the historical record. Far from this show being only covered for one week in 1975, its been decades and we are still talking about it because its contents were so shocking. The only reason I can think that anyone would want to remove it is to protect the reputation of the ABC. Thisbe Schultz (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any of those arguments are good enough to keep this article. I will just agree to disagree. V. S. Video (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

We don't keep articles because they talk about something "shocking". We keep articles if they are notable. What ABC did or didn't do does not matter at all. Skyshiftertalk 20:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Mum's the word

Mum's the word (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)

Most of the coverage I could find about this is actually about feminism or women's autonomy. There is not much covering the word itself. Of course, there are entries in dictionaries, but if that's all we use, we'd end up at WP:NOTDICT. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Sexuality and gender. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to English-language idioms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Mum's the Word (a dab page) also exists. It could be merged to there, but given that page, this isn't purely a dicdef. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  A basic definition of "Mum's the word" can be put there, and then the disambiguation should be removed. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to the dab page (deletion would be fine too; in-wiki searches are case-insensitive). This is clearly just a dicdef, and the dab page already has the basic definition along with a Wikitionary link box, so nothing more is really needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The rationale is flawed. This phrase has nothing to do with feminism (or chrysanthemums!), but the idiom is so well-known that it's frequently used as a pun in headlines and titles. That's not a valid reason to delete, but it does make searching for sources a bit harder. pburka (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  This doesn't really address the WP:NOTDICT concerns, though, regardless of confusion in the nomination. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Keeper (matchmaking website)

Keeper (matchmaking website) (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)

Cited sources that are not the company's own mostly read like routine announcements ("startup secures funding", etc.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like some random LLM slop dating website. Nothing notable here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete The references section looks amazing. ly bad. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete As per G5 the Article was created by Blocked user Zero Contradictions --BengalMC (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Artificial intelligence. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm Jake Kozloski, the founder of Keeper, so I have a conflict of interest. I'm not voting. One substantial article is missing from the references: Kevin Jiang's "Can a robot find you love? These AI dating companies think so" in the Toronto Star from March 23, 2023, which opens with a couple who became engaged after using Keeper and quotes me. The PitchBook News story already cited through Yahoo Finance discusses Keeper for several paragraphs as the lead example in a broader article about AI dating. Keeper is also discussed more briefly, with an interview with me, in The Cut's September 17, 2025 piece, "AI Is Making Online Dating Even Worse". Jake Kozloski (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (COI disclosed above and on my user page; still not voting): One new source that postdates this nomination. The Free Press today published a bylined feature by Kara Kennedy, "You Think Modern Dating's Awful? Then Fix It." (August 13, 2026), with several paragraphs of original reporting on Keeper, including statements the reporter obtained from Tinder and Hinge for the piece. Leaving it here for editors evaluating sourcing. Jake Kozloski (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

SugarDaddy.com

SugarDaddy.com (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)

Stub article consisting of a single sentence. TechnicalNewt (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Florida. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: by itself, simply being a single-sentence stub is not a reason for deletion, so long as there is still just enough to fend off A1 or A3 speedy deletion. However, this has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since 2024, and all the way back in 2013 (when the article was created) there was a declined PROD on those grounds (and an even-quicker A7 decline, too, as there was enough of a claim of significance). I'll note that the user that placed the notability tag also reduced it to the stub in the first place on UPE grounds (a concurrent UPE tag has since been removed, albeit by a user that turned out to be a sock.) No opinion of my own, but there are potential reasons for deletion here, just not what the nominator brought up. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

2017 Uppsala rape

2017 Uppsala rape (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 2017 in Sweden because this fails WP:NEVENT. There is no WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage, and there do not seem to be WP:EFFECTs that are strong enough to keep the article. A search for sources that cover the event some time after it happened brings up this, , which only mentions the case twice. However, these mentions, while not WP:SIGCOV, can be used to put the article in the 2017 in Sweden page. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, Islam, and Sweden. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd argue that if it there isn't notability for a stand-alone article, there definitely isn't notability for inclusion in an article which is meant to cover important events in the entire country. The threshold for inclusion in an overview which lists significant events in Sweden for the year of 2017 can't be so low that it includes criminal events which haven't been notable enough to be covered in their own articles – that threshold should be higher than for having an article about something, not lower. If it can't be kept, the better solution is to delete it. /Julle (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Julle Do you have a vote? Longhornsg (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have not done the research required to form an opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, no, but I specifically oppose merging it into 2017 in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Julle. List articles like 2017 in Sweden should only include topics supported by standalone articles. pburka (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:NEVENT or redirect to Livestreamed crime as an WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a delete or a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2026 (UTC)