Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 13 October 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

African diaspora Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	LGBTQ+ studies
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Astrology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. GODDESSY (talk · contribs) / Adams, S This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fortune 500 investing

Taken from a New York Observer article I found on Factiva...

"Ms. Adams is an interesting bird. Claiming to be a direct descendant of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, she’s a mix of West Indian, Cherokee Indian, English, Welsh, Italian and Egyptian. After high school, she signed with the Wilhelmina and Elite modeling agencies, posed in Playboy as Miss November 1992, and is now an 'avid investor' in Fortune 500 companies. She’s written seven books on spirituality and calls herself a 'sorceress.'"

Hope that helps verify the sentence a bit. J Readings (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a question - how is being an investor notable enough to warrant inclusion? It seems trivial. 222.124.185.146 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems very trivial. Anyone with a 401(k) account could say they are an investor in the Fortune 500 companies. That quote tells us what we know (Playmate, model), and what she calls herself. Dayewalker (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we all agree that we're supposed to avoid original research when writing encyclopedia articles. When Gwen requested a citation yesterday for the unsourced claim, I took that to mean she simply wanted it verified. That an independent third-party wrote about it does check out. As for the rest of the New York Observer article, I don't recall what it said. I'd have to go back and re-read the article on Factiva. J Readings (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a courtesy publicity blurb to me. In truth, most of the article reads like an advertisement and I have tagged it as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, Gwen. After all, the journalists make it clear in the article that she's obviously the source of that information. That said, who else are they going to turn to? Investigative journalism on the life of former Playboy centerfold is not up there on the list of priorities for most journalists nowadays. J Readings (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear about how to handle unreliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously when she was assaulted by a cab driver and the police it was news, even headline news on CNN. And she's not just a former centerfold, she's an author and investor, something most playmates or even most people for that matter cannot claim. You don't have to praise or like her, but you cannot avoid the reputable facts either. 96.246.113.133 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like most of you - not J Readings - have made unproven assumptions that a playmate has the time or care to edit her own article and are therefore trying to show your lack of abilities to be neutral by wanting to remove basic facts. It's possible for a woman with beauty to have brains and become an avid investor. What's the real problem here Gale? 66.108.145.222 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem! She didn't just take her kit off for Playboy; she's an American metaphysics writer. That's what it says in the list of categories for the article, anyway. Concerned not to confuse metaphysics with, say, pataphysics, I looked up the former in Misplaced Pages (for what this is worth), where I read that the central questions of metaphysics are, and I quote:

1. Abstract objects and mathematics
2. Cosmology and cosmogony
3. Determinism and free will
4. Identity and change
5. Mind and matter
6. Necessity and possibility
7. Objects and their properties
8. Religion and spirituality
9. Space and time

Pretty impressive! I wonder how many of these she addresses in any journal of note.

But would a metaphysician be concerned, indeed avidly concerned, with mere lucre? Mysteries galore. Shall we invite some metaphysicians over to evaluate her achievements?

Meanwhile, "avid" always reminds me of Sidney Falco, the increasingly desperate talent agent (played by Tony Curtis) in Sweet Smell of Success. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that Adams has plenty of money and wants to remain private now, so there seems to be no need for her to want any kind of "publicity coverage". Comments like that from Gwen Gale, who is vigorously editing her page right now with a passion...or should I say vengeance...are personal attacks on the person in the subject. Remember to remain neutral, but if you don't, someone like me will come along again when you're finished eventually and just re-edit it to the way it should be. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source.

What's the problem someone asked? The problem is as obvious as someone else's problem who apparently lost a lawsuit against her. Misplaced Pages is a questionable resource because any amateur can come on here and become an "editor". No one knows the facts about this woman's life like she does and many people are jealous of famous people, which is why they come across so bitter when they write or blog about them. That's what official celebrity websites are for and that's why people ultimately go to her official websites for real information about her. 96.246.113.133 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds curiously similar to a statement that you'll find here and that's ascribed to Adams herself. Just an odd coincidence, I suppose. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing something from a year ago and actually doing the recearch on it sounds a bit obsessive to me. And it's no coincidence that you're still on here making comments. From what I read in the past about you, Jimbo told you to refrain from editing on here because you were editing more out of anger than objectivity. 96.246.113.133 (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No "research" needed: (i) Go to archive; (ii) Hit Ctrl-F, type "jealous", hit the Enter key. Now, where would you have read this factoid about me? (Am I famous or something?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not famous Hoary. You're on the discussion page, not the article. TringleTrident (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysician?

As noted above, I'm surprised to read that Adams is an "American metaphysics writer". Do we have any evidence for this claim-via-category, or should it go? -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, try taking a look at the 20 metaphysical books and calendars she's written. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any other metaphysics works that cite her? (How does she come up in Google Scholar?) And how does one write a calendar? -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot erase her "spiritual" and "metaphysical" books (and calendars) on Borders, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. so perhaps you should give that argument up. RJMC (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoary is asking about the notability of these publications, not their existence. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional Discussions & Editing

For the longest, this article has been filled with people who seem to have personal feelings and anger issues regarding Stephanie Adams. It's obvious that no one here knows her, yet there is a history of making comments and so-called edits on this article like you went to school with her and were always jealous of her. This is blatant unprofessionalism in both the discussions as well as the editing. But that's what happens when you have a site that anyone can edit on. TringleTrident (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Add Info

Like most articles on wiki, this one seems to need more info added to it, not removed. It seems like there are a lot of people interested in it, so why not contribute to it constructively? 72.225.247.142 (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that everyone needs to calm down a little bit, please. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I arrived at this article yesterday by pure accident. Now that I'm here, I've had a chance to read up on Ms. Adams via Factiva and LexisNexis. I found a fair number of articles on her. Some of them are short gossip columns concerning her latest escapades. Others--slightly longer blurbs. Strangely enough, I wasn't able to find any serious book reviews of her work as a "spirituality author" of metaphysics or anything else. That's not meant to be an insult at all, just a statement of fact. I wouldn't expect to find any academic reviews of her work on JSTOR because, let's face it, she's not an academic philosopher or theologian. I was expecting to find a few newspaper reviews, at least, by journalists who actually read her work. I couldn't find any. The Miami New Times was the closest I could find to a review (Juan Carlos Rodriguez, "Astral Bunny Miss November '92 can tell lesbians their future," October 9, 2003). It was only 360 words and it read in part:

"In case you're not completely assured by this shameless plug, you may want to consult with someone who can peer into your future. Enter Stephanie Adams, Playboy magazine's Miss November 1992, metaphysical guru, author, and recently stepped-out lesbian. Although she won't set you "straight" (God forbid), she may be able to assist you with getting your bearings. Among the four metaphysical books she's recently published, Adams will be signing copies of Sapphica: Astrology for Lesbians, her love guide for women who love women and who need helpful advice for the future. The book is just one in a series of astrological how-to guides custom-made for each sexual persuasion. Though she may break from stereotypes herself, her perspective may sound familiar. 'Lesbian astrology is as different from straight or gay male astrology as are the dynamics of a person's sexuality,' Adams says from her New York City apartment. 'With women I focus more on emotional issues. Women are more emotional, men are more physical.' She gets her insight not only from the Egyptian tarot cards she uses, but from the abundance of women in her family who claim to have soothsaying powers. Adams says her grandmother can read futures by speaking to people on the telephone. 'It's kind of intense,' Adams, a Leo, explains. So if you have any doubts about coming out, or about any other issue bothering you on the eve of National Coming Out Day, Adams will make herself available for a consultation. As for which category of lesbian she might fit into, Adams replies, 'I have lipsticks of every color.'"

Notice how it's not a book review, it's a plug.

I guess what I'm trying to say is -- it's unfortunate because she sounds interesting. But it's always a bad sign when academics and journalists don't bother to review an author's work. If the academics don't touch it, it's not worth an academic's time. But if the journalists don't really review it either? Hmmm....J Readings (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a review from a February 2005 issue of She magazine:

Cover To Cover By Diane Wilde

Sapphica, 2005 Astrological Love Readings for Lesbians -- You might be lucky enough to remember Stephanie as a former She cover girl. Oh yes, she was also a Playboy centerfold and creator of the websites www.sapphica.com and www.goddessy.com. Yes, beauty and brains are a wonderful combination, add Stephanie's spirituality, and it is powerful indeed. She accurately tells it like it is, summing up the love essence of each sign. In her own words, "Sapphica uncovers every aspect of your love life (whether you are singled or coupled) and analyzes your love for others as well as yourself." While her format may be similar to other astrological books, she speaks to us sisters as only a sister can. I'm still amazed at how each month she pins the tail on my issues…Bullseye! Once again, there I was with my mouth open. Was she talking to me?! And her narrative gets right to the point: "Surely you don't have to take the advice given to you. Lots of people learn the hard way," makes it nearly impossible not to take a good, long, hard look at what she is saying to you.

71.167.252.92 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Miss Adams has now chosen to be a private person.

It appears to me that from her last press release on her web site that she avoids the media now and wants to be a private person, so it's quite possible that she just writes the books and doesn't promote them like she did in the past. 71.167.252.92 (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't acknowledge Misplaced Pages as a source when you do a search on "Stephanie Adams".

Instead, a few of her sites come up, along with a few celebrity photo sites with her pictures on them. Maybe it's because there is really not that much information on here and not much more to say either. So what is there really left to talk about? Just an observation on my part. Looks like her wanting to be private has now been respected by the media too. 71.167.252.92 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Glib as it may sound, wouldn't the best way to help respect her decision to live a private life be to remove this article? The less information available on the net, the more private she is... 222.124.185.146 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Adams is too important to not be on here (even though I personally do not think wikipedia is an important resource). From what I see above, someone in the past tried to remove her article, but the result was a speedy keep. Her accomplishments as a public person (centerfold, model, author, etc.) are notable, but her private life should remain private and respected as such. The edits, by the way, appear to be good ones, but need a few tweaks to be even better. RJMC (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start blocking these sockpuppets if this doesn't stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I've rewritten the article following WP:NPOV. Given the overall topic, I think the sources and text are ok now and I hardly took out anything at all. However, her writing career still needs meaningful sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like her writing career doesn't have to be elaborated upon. Just a list of the books she's written is sufficient and has already been noted. RJMC (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If they haven't gotten meaningful coverage (aside from publicity and advertising blurbs, which are easy to get), they shouldn't be listed in the article, although a brief mention of her writing activites would be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing activities? She's a published author of 17 new age books and 3 astrology calendars, in addition to being the model for her 2008, 2009 and 2010 calendars, all of which are on Borders, Amazon, Barnes And Noble, etc., so her being a centerfold in Playboy is nothing compared to what she has done recently. RJMC (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All of these publications seem to have been wholly ignored by reviewers. The only coverage I've been able to find on them have been press release or book sales sites on which the author herself could have easily posted or registered. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles About Stephanie Adams, The Author

These are a few available links I found that show reviews for Adams as an author:

• • http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2003-10-09/calendar/astral-bunny/
  • http://www.nyblade.com/2003/9-12/locallife/nitelife/nitelife.cfm

I'm sure there are more, but one or two is enough for referencing.

96.246.110.200 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One has already been rm'd from the article as a publicity blurb. Likewise with the other, it's not meaningful coverage or a review, only a blurb. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how these books are viewed by libraries. I don't think that this Adams is the same as Stephanie J. Adams, author of Religion, society and godly women: the nature of female piety in a late medieval urban community, a PhD thesis (Bristol 2001) that is held by some libraries. (See Copac.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoary something tells me it's not her. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Praise (or not) from the Village Voice

We're told that "In 2004 The Village Voice named her "Best NYC lesbian sex symbol." The award sounded odd to me so I looked it up. The link was dead, but easy to find via archive.org. (I thereupon adjusted the link accordingly.) We're told:

Now that we have The L Word, people are starting to pick up on the fact that dykes can be hotties too. None more so than the tall, slender STEPHANIE ADAMS, who not only was a Playboy Playmate, but is a descendant of President John Adams and a writer of occult books. It's hard to turn a page in a queer rag without seeing the willowy model peeking out in a bikini, or nothing at all.

Perhaps there's nothing necessarily wrong with calling anybody a "dyke" or a "hottie" in print, but it's not something I'd rush to do. To judge what this is really saying, I need context. So here are the next ten in this long list:

• Best anonymous sex symbol NECK FACE
• Best B-list celeb easily confused with the crowd outside the Bowery Mission VINCENT GALLO
• Best blogger likely to deservedly strike it rich LINDSAY ROBERTSON
• Best cab driver IRIS JAVED
• Best demolition photographer SUSANNE WIMMER
• Best doorman THOMAS ONORATO
• Best East German transsexual since Hedwig JEFFERSON MAYS
• Best evil person OMAROSA MANIGAULT-STALLWORTH
• Best fake tan on a local weatherman SAM CHAMPION
• Best food-foraging guide 'WILDMAN' STEVE BRILL

Lindsay Robertson is not the Lindsay Robertson whose article is now at AfD. The only other person I've heard of in this list, or indeed in the full list, is Vincent Gallo, a name I hazily remember from talk about a movie titled Buffalo 66. But the reference in this list to this strange-sounding person is uncomplimentary.

I start to wonder if this whole thing is a piss-take of some kind. Would it be kinder to Adams if the reference to it were removed? -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be on to something. The feature is called The Best of NYC and she's in a lengthy, cleary somewhat comical classification called characters. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Broken MySpace Link

Just noting that I removed it again. The link was reintroduced by TimeForYourRealityCheck, but still did not work. Is it notable enough to be included given that we already have links to her official site, among others? If so, a working link is needed. Wandering canadian (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MySpace and External Links

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that MySpace pages are discouraged from being added to the external links of any article according to the style guidelines. I checked WP:EXTERNAL and sure enough, that's what it says. Unless...the MySpace page is THE official page of Stephanie Adams. Is it? We already link to www.stephanieadams.com, so I'm wondering if the MySpace page becomes automatically redundant in line with the style guidelines. What do others think? J Readings (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You may very well be right, but there's some disagreement over it. The last time I tried to sort this out was three months ago, here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should return to the question, then. Why do we need more than one "official website"? J Readings (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The link added by TimeForYourRealityCheck did work actually. Go back and try it for yourself. It's a link to the official Stephanie Adams MySpace page, which is http://www.myspace.com/goddessy 66.108.145.222 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It works for me this time - strange. In any case, the question remains if it adds anything to the article. With links to her Sapphica.com, stephanieadams.com, and goddessy.com sites, there doesn't seem to be a need to add the MySpace. Wandering canadian (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can't think of any. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well being that it is "the MySpace page is THE official page of Stephanie Adams" as Readings put it, it is one of her primary web sites. Goddessy.com primarily refers to her being an author, Sapphica.com primarily refers to her being a gay rights advocate, StephanieAdams.com primarily refers to her being a centerfold for Playboy, and her MySpace/goddessy.com site primarily refers to her as being simply who she is: Stephanie Adams. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One neat solution would then be to keep the link to the MySpace page and to delete the links to the others. People could then take the links from the MySpace page to Adams's other sites. (If the MySpace page is working, that is. Right now, it isn't. Unless perhaps it's doing some sort of IP/user-agent sniffing, and doesn't like me.) ¶ Alternatively, just keep stephanieadams.com; after all, it announces itself as "THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE FOR STEPHANIE ADAMS", it hawks her books, it has a link to her MySpace page, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend removing the MySpace link, the goddessy.com link, the Sapphica.com link, and keeping stephanieadams.com. Anyone clicking to that site can easily get to the others if they were absolutely necessary. What I'm certain about is the MySpace link is redundant. I also don't have a problem with keeping the Playboy link or IMDB. There is also TV.com on Stephanie Adams, but for me it's a toss-up between the IMDB and TV.com. Whichever, but the article wouldn't need both. J Readings (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The MySpace page comes up within the top 10 of Google when you do a search for "Stephanie Adams", so whether it is on this site or not, it is still relevant to the search engines. 71.167.229.224 (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, User 71.167.229.224 continues the tradition of many anonymous posters here of being someone who never posted previously and suddenly shows up to post a comment in support of another "different" anonymous poster. See 71.167.226.96, 71.167.230.171, 71.167.236.169, 71.167.246.204, 66.108.144.201, 66.108.146.133, 66.108.3.221, 66.108.4.133. Just something to note when considering how many voices are chiming in. --Sean Martin (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If Adams has more than one personal web site, I suggest that we keep a single link to stephanieadams.com. There is precedent in other articles for doing so. I don't see a need for having separate links for Goddessy books or Sapphica. No objection to retaining the external link to her entry at the Playboy site. The IMDB link is quite uninformative and I don't see that it adds any value. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So in conclusion...

We seem to be in agreement that we can pair down the unnecessary links in accordance with WP:EXTERNAL. Hoary, Wandering canadian, EdJohnston, and I all seem to favor that approach. Sean D Martin hasn't expressed an opinion either way and then, of course, there are the anonymous IP addresses. Would anyone else care to offer an opinion based on their reading of WP:EXTERNAL and the evidence? J Readings (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In addition, Sean Martin stating prior that Ms. Adams is bringing out more "venom" and claiming she is using "sock puppets" is defamatory, as his personal assumptions are in direct conflict with editing this article. These defamatory comments have been removed unless Misplaced Pages wants to risk being sued for libel. 71.167.232.90 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Low-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Start-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class astrology articles
• Unknown-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Pornography articles
• Low-importance Pornography articles
• Start-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors