- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was no consensus. None of the editors arguing to delete addressed the academic citations uncovered by Piotrus. A Train talk 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Transracial (identity)
- Transracial (identity) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined G4 on this as the content, and in particular the sources, are substantially different to the previously deleted version. However, given that an article on the same subject was deleted as the result of this discussion two years ago, I think it would be good to have a debate on this (relatively stub-ish) article. The sourcing has improved slightly in the meantime, with some academic texts addressing the topic, but I'm doubtful that it meets GNG as yet. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is basically an article about two people, one of whom has a very well developed article about her (including this subject matter). Taking that and tacking on a reference to a Maury Povich Show guest does not a subject make. Fails WP:GNG outside of discussion of Dolezal, who has her own page. Until there's more academic support or popular usage of this term, it's WP:TOOSOON for this. Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The term is used in academic studies, through we have to control for a separate concept, transrational adoption. Still, I see several sources that deal with identity and not adoption: see [1] and [2]. Now, while I've just skimmed the sources, and I don't preclude that a merge and redirect could be an option, I don't see such arguments. And while the current stub likely has undue weight given to two people, and should be expanded to discuss the theory of the concept more, it seems notable to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Ethnic identity development, the broader topic. As Piotrus mentioned, there is some, but not a lot, of academic development of the transracial identitiy concept in particular. But merging verifiable content into the broader Ethnic identity development topic in social psychology would place it in better context. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ethnic identity development as an alternative to deletion; the subject is not yet independently notable per WP:NEO. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would support redirect as an alternative to just delete. Either is preferable to keep. Shelbystripes ( talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how 60k of coverage of Hypatia transracialism controversy can be WP:DUE if this page is deleted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I suspect the arguments against deletion are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whether the commenters realize it or not. The subject has received substantial press coverage. Here are some sources:
- For Rachel Dolezal:
- New York Times
- Huffington Post
- Slate
- BBC
- Literally dozens of articles in dozens of notable outlets using the term for Dolezal.
- For another individual:
- In short, the concept is notable, has notable press coverage, and passes
WP:GNG.
Magog the Ogre (
t •
c) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those sources put the term in quotes e.g ‘Transracial’ vs. Transgender. This indicates it is not an established term and this article should be titled "Transracial", but we don't have articles like that because that's not what encyclopedias do.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not an established term as evidenced by the vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes. Therefore it's not even suitable for a dictionary let alone an encyclopedia article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. Not an well-established term (vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes). Wikipedia's Rachel Dolezal article says she resigned from her NAACP position and that she committed several lies. desmay ( talk)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was no consensus. None of the editors arguing to delete addressed the academic citations uncovered by Piotrus. A Train talk 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Transracial (identity)
- Transracial (identity) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined G4 on this as the content, and in particular the sources, are substantially different to the previously deleted version. However, given that an article on the same subject was deleted as the result of this discussion two years ago, I think it would be good to have a debate on this (relatively stub-ish) article. The sourcing has improved slightly in the meantime, with some academic texts addressing the topic, but I'm doubtful that it meets GNG as yet. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - This is basically an article about two people, one of whom has a very well developed article about her (including this subject matter). Taking that and tacking on a reference to a Maury Povich Show guest does not a subject make. Fails WP:GNG outside of discussion of Dolezal, who has her own page. Until there's more academic support or popular usage of this term, it's WP:TOOSOON for this. Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The term is used in academic studies, through we have to control for a separate concept, transrational adoption. Still, I see several sources that deal with identity and not adoption: see [1] and [2]. Now, while I've just skimmed the sources, and I don't preclude that a merge and redirect could be an option, I don't see such arguments. And while the current stub likely has undue weight given to two people, and should be expanded to discuss the theory of the concept more, it seems notable to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Ethnic identity development, the broader topic. As Piotrus mentioned, there is some, but not a lot, of academic development of the transracial identitiy concept in particular. But merging verifiable content into the broader Ethnic identity development topic in social psychology would place it in better context. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ethnic identity development as an alternative to deletion; the subject is not yet independently notable per WP:NEO. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would support redirect as an alternative to just delete. Either is preferable to keep. Shelbystripes ( talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how 60k of coverage of Hypatia transracialism controversy can be WP:DUE if this page is deleted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I suspect the arguments against deletion are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whether the commenters realize it or not. The subject has received substantial press coverage. Here are some sources:
- For Rachel Dolezal:
- New York Times
- Huffington Post
- Slate
- BBC
- Literally dozens of articles in dozens of notable outlets using the term for Dolezal.
- For another individual:
- In short, the concept is notable, has notable press coverage, and passes
WP:GNG.
Magog the Ogre (
t •
c) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those sources put the term in quotes e.g ‘Transracial’ vs. Transgender. This indicates it is not an established term and this article should be titled "Transracial", but we don't have articles like that because that's not what encyclopedias do.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete not an established term as evidenced by the vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes. Therefore it's not even suitable for a dictionary let alone an encyclopedia article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. Not an well-established term (vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes). Wikipedia's Rachel Dolezal article says she resigned from her NAACP position and that she committed several lies. desmay ( talk)
- 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.