Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender suicide

:{{la|Gender suicide}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gender_suicide Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gender suicide}})

Apparent WP:FRINGE theory, not supported by any reliable source coverage. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the person listed in the article as the originator of the theory. As always, Wikipedia is not the place to start propagating new concepts — our job here is to follow the media coverage, not to lead it. I'd actually have speedied this if I could find a speedy criterion that applied to it — I suppose it could be seen as approaching G11, but I don't think it's quite blatant enough to cross the line. But it's still a clearcut delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it ever actually becomes a thing that reliable sources actually discuss. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator and WP:NEOLOGISM. mikeman67 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. The only references to this theory or indeed this "doctor" I can find are on Twitter, YouTube, and other non-reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - a couple of brief mentions, but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly create redirect to Gender differences in suicide. I couldn't anything to show that this specific theory has been covered in reliable sources that would show that this is anything other than a neologism. However what I did find was that one of the first hits was to gender differences in suicide, even with the term in quotation marks. This is because the article uses the term "gender-suicide gap", so it stands to reason that this term might be a reasonable enough search term for someone looking for that article. However for this term as it's used in the current article? I can find nothing to back up any notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete As best I can tell, given the article's lack of references, it's a WP:FRINGE theory with no reliable sourcing or use in scientific literature. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Don't seem to be WP:RS that take this away from WP:FRINGE amd WP:NOTNEO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable, also per WP:FRINGE and WP:NEOLOGISM. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.