Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial identity

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Strongest policy-and-guideline rationales given: non-notable neologism (WP:NEO); original research/synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) slakr\ talk / 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial identity

edit
Transracial identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism, possibly part of the continuing attempts to get "Transracial" into Wikipedia despite there being no scientific or reliable basis for it, AfD instead of PROD due to creating user being long-term, if occasional. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that many of those "reliable sources" even put the word "Transracial" in scare quotes should tell you most of what you need to know. This is a neologism. It hasn't been defined. There is practically no scientific definition or investigation of it. There hasn't even a Wikipedia article on the "condition" until now, which probably tells you all you need to know. We don't invent things based on a single case. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TTBOMK, we don't exclude controversial or emergent concepts from WP because of the fact they're controversial or emergent. And the fact there is "practically no scientific investigation of it" is fairly irrelevant. There is "practically no scientific investigation of it" on the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, Rémy Chevrin, Cutts baronets, etc.). The article meets our WP:NOTABILITY standards for breadth and depth of coverage in RS. BlueSalix (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't exclude controversial or emergent concepts from WP because of the fact they're controversial or emergent." We do if they're concepts that aren't backed up by any reliable sources apart from a word being used by popular media. Even your two "serious" sources are talking about children brought up by people from different ethnic background and are socialized into that background, not someone who chooses a racial identity different from their real one. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's patently incorrect. The article has been expanded. You AfD'ed it within 13 minutes of its creation so I can understand how you've made this mistake. No problem. BlueSalix (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Wikipedia has had no article on this "thing" since it was founded in 2003 is that (a) it doesn't exist, or (b) assuming good faith, it's a neologism that has appeared in the last week. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "thing" was "founded in 2003"? I'm not really following you. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is a concept that was made up this week, Black Kite. I'm sure that if I looked hard, I could find the term in academic literature but it likely means something similar to multiracial, rather than trying to pass as a different race. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. This is both a hoax (currently promoted by 4chan) to ridicule Dolezal and/or transgendered people by making a false analogy between transgender and a seemingly bizarre case involving one woman, and a fork of the many, many other articles dealing with the Dolezal case, passing (racial identity) and related concepts. There is no real concept called "transracial identity", no people who identify themselves as such, no medical condition, no organizations advocating this supposed identity etc. Everything supposedly covered by the concept is already covered in passing (racial identity). Note that this is also the third "transracial" article subject to an ongoing AfD and suspected of being a hoax. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor of history and assistant dean of Interdisciplinary Studies and International Programs at North Carolina State University Blair L.M. Kelley clearly articulates on the Washington Post why transracial "is not passing", and identifies persons such as icons like writer Charles Chesnutt, feminist leader Mary Church Terrell, Mordecai Johnson — the first African American president of Howard University, Dolezal’s alma mater — and NAACP leader Walter White to be more related to the concept of transracial. So please do not allege that the Wikipedia entry for passing is redundant to this page. XavierItzm (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather unsurprisingly that article does nothing of the sort. -- haminoon (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few straight quotes from the Washington Post, so people can assess the truth of Haminoon's comment:
"Whatever Rachel Dolezal is doing, let’s not call it ‘passing’"
"What, then, of Dolezal? In a bizarre sense, she almost seems to have patterned herself after black icons like writer Charles W. Chesnutt, feminist leader Mary Church Terrell, Mordecai Johnson — the first African American president of Howard University, Dolezal’s alma mater — and NAACP leader Walter White. All lighter-complected African Americans who could have passed, but chose not to, and were admired for their commitment to black uplift."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/16/whatever-rachel-dolezal-is-doing-lets-not-call-it-passing/ - XavierItzm (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to state that this is just Dolezal. You have a straigh-up quote from a NYU professor whose reseach area is "race and ethnicity, especially racial classification" addressing the issue of transracial: "identifying more with a race other than their own", for instance. XavierItzm (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why has Wikipedia not had an article on this alleged thing from 2003 to date? In nearly 5,000,000 articles, no-one thought to write an article about this clearly "notable" issue? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles are created by users, like you and me, not by some mysterious force. We haven't had an article on the 19th century Romanian poet Barbu Solacolu until today, that doesn't mean Barbu isn't a real person. BlueSalix (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this thing existed, it would be as notable as transgenderism. The chance of an article not existing about it, should it really exist, is zero. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I think you aren't entirely clear on how Wikipedia works. There is no basis in our crtierion for article creation by which "we can't create an article about this on WP because there isn't an article about this on WP." BlueSalix (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but considering that you are the editor who created an article about a topic that is a WP:HOAX, and whose content consists of forking of other articles and a bunch of original research/synthesis, I think you aren't entirely clear on how Wikipedia works. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CIVIL before choosing to continue participating in this discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say the same to you. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wikimandia - whatever is occurring off-WP I'm unaware of, however, I'm certain my edit history will affirm that I'm hardly a "right-winger." I've been instrumental in AfD'ing right-wing hoaxes on WP, such as here [[1]] and other places. Please treat this article on its own merits, not what you automatically assume to be part of a separate, off-Wiki campaign/conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A project which purports to be a legitimate encyclopedia should not give airtime to right-wing racist neologisms. This does not exist as a thing itself, only as a transient meme/pejorative. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - did you actually read the article you voted "Delete" on? Your comment suggests you did not. BlueSalix (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did; a lot of hot air about something that does not exist. You don't need to troll everyone who votes in a way that disagrees with your opinion on the matter, kiddo; see WP:BLUDGEON. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason for you to use diminuitives like "kiddo" to describe a fellow WP editor. There is absolutely no reason to call someone promoting a conversation in a discussion page a "troll" for doing so. Please police your behavior here. The sheer vitriol some people seem to believe is acceptable to inject into this AfD is astonishing. BlueSalix (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have thought of that before making snide commentaries (e.g. "did you even read...") of your own; when you treat others with disrespect, then cries of being disrespected in turn ring hollow. Garbage in, garbage out. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking someone if they read the article is not disrespectful. Using diminuitives and slurs and saying my opinion is "garbage" is. Please stop attacking me. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I said I found it to be disrespectful, then it was. You aren't the judge of me and what I find irksome. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is a place for dialog, not denouncements. I'm sorry you've chosen to participate in the conversation in this way. As you've noted, however, there's nothing I can do to stop you from behaving in this way if that's the way you choose to present yourself. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that you lack the ability to recognize your own contribution to the vitriolic tenor of this discussion. C'est la vie. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie, while I disagree, thank you for taking the time to read the article and treat it on its own merits, for posting a calm comment, for AGF, and for not denouncing me as part of an off-WP conspiracy. BlueSalix (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Look at the first line of the first paragraph: "Began with Rachel Donezal." More of an attempt to milk the news, if not play lulz. The other option would be to Redirect to transracial which is a disambiguation that ought not have this as a daughter. Attested usages of "transracial" are for societies, ideologies, and economics. As an identity, "transracial" is non-racial, since race itself is not a genetically valid concept nor one currently accepted by the professional organization of Anthropology in the US. (I.e. it ain't a division of "peoples," and it ain't genetic. It is real, however.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the first line is "Transracial is the state of one's racial identity or expression not matching one's natural skin color. Though described by some sources as "the latest addition to the rapidly changing American lexicon," there have been questions as to its legitimacy." BlueSalix (talk)
Ohnoitsjamie First, thank you for addressing your comment civilly. This is a fascinating discussion and I'm glad to have people on the other side of the fence who choose to engage in it in a civil way. Second, WP:NEO says that the term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles. I think you'll agree, reviewing the article, that the burden of use has been met and exceeded. BlueSalix (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned primarily in the context of a single recent event meets the definition of a neologism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all meet objective standards of WP:RS -- KMGH-TV has said transracial is "the latest addition to the rapidly changing American lexicon," "Ann Morning, a sociologist at New York University, has stated that people can be transracial", "Peter Gale, a senior lecturer in race and ethnicity at the University of South Australia, told The Sydney Morning Herald that "it was possible for a person to identify as another race." Gale said race was a social construct," etc. BlueSalix (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would cite something a bit more authoritative than a local news affiliate, we could talk. That race is a social construct doesn't yet mean "transracial identity" is a concept we should encyclopedize. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - the article (a) cites Dr Ann Morrow, associate professor at New York University [[2]] and, Dr David Goldberg, race policy analyst at the University of California at Irvine, [[3]] directly addressing (not tangentially as some have accused) the term "transracial," among others, (b) demonstrates that the term was used prior to this month, in reviews of the transracial novel "Your Face in Mine." The KMGH quote (and those from Yahoo News, Time Magazine, etc.) simply reinforces the status of the term in the cultural zeitgeist which is used to establish WP:NOTABILITY. In any case, even though we disagree, thank you for accepting the GF in which the article was created and not dehumanizing me with terms like "garbage," "troll," and "kiddo" as others have felt necessary to do when weighing-in on this AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality - how many additional sources do you believe it would need to be sufficiently supported? There are other sources I omitted due to brevity but I can add in if there's a consensus that additional sources will bring this article up to speed. If the opinion is that this article can never be included in WP, no matter how many sources there are, that's an interpretation of WP:IGNORE with which I passionately disagree, but will certainly accept. BlueSalix (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't seem to drop the sledgehammer and walk away, I see? I have seen this sort of thing in countless AfDs, where the aggrieved page creator/contributor has a kitten and harangues every editor who weighs in with an opinion contrary to their own, and you know what happens? It winds up being a Streisand effect, where even more editors will come to opine delete. You've had your say, repeatedly, now let the community have theirs. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - I politely asked Neutrality a question for my own clarification. He replied. I thanked him. That's how dialog and discussion works. In this short discussion you've called me "garbage" and "kiddo," among other names. That's not the way to dialog. I've left a disengagement template on your Talk page. I respectfully suggest we both choose not to interact with each other moving forward if descriptors like this are the only means we have to engage with each other. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are low-quality. The vast majority relate to the recent controversy. The rest are primarily WP:SYNTHESIS (the part about the unrelated novel at the end is particularly egregious - it takes one phrase from a book review out of context and draws a connection to an unrelated tempest-in-a-teapot. I cannot conceive of any way this is independently notable. This merits a redirect at most. I will not comment further because it is clear I cannot change your mind. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Neutrality. Thanks for responding to my question and for the clarification! BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above--OR, derived from all-too quick responses to the news cycle, etc. Might as well start an article on "incognegro" and cite the Nightly Show. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - while I disagree with your characterization that KMGH-TV, Journal of Social Work, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. are of the same level of RS as the Nightly Show, I respect that we will agree to disagree. Thanks for your !vote. BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thanks for your comment. But there are some misunderstandings here. The point is, how reliable is what is cited in for instance the Sydney Morning Herald? And then we find that Peter Gale is hardly saying what this article proposes as "transracial identity"--to go from race as a social construct to transracial identity is possible, but why don't we wait until Peter Gale publishes that book? And no, I don't accept KMGH's dictum on the American lexicon; that's not their job anyway. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the RS of the Sydney Morning Herald is now suspect, we have a lot of articles on WP that will need a serious re-work. BlueSalix (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, that is the best comment I've seen yet. I think you point out something important. I think that the way that transracial is being used popularly at this moment is the same as passing. I'm not an expert on the sociology of race but in sociology there are concepts like Transexual, Transfeminism, Transgender and Transnational. I think when the article on transracial will be written, it will be about either a) transcending race or b) having multiple racial identity, c) both or d) some meaning that is defined in the future. While scholarship doesn't usually follow current events, I'm sure this Rachel Dolezal instance of racial passing will prompt future studies and reflections on the meaning of racial identity. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - thanks much. The article was a GF attempt at encapsulating the various academic opinions that have been fronted about the topic of Transracial, as well as discussion in the zeitgeist conerning it. While I'm aware there is a parallel, off-Wiki, conversation about this occurring by right-wing extremists, the article was separate, intended to stand on its own merits, and provide a well-sourced alternative to the inevitable POV article that would have occupied this space by limiting sources to scholarly journals and mainstream media, which it did. (I was probably naive for not realizing, in advance, that many people would automatically assume that this article was indeed said POV pusher.) While maintaining my "Keep" !vote, I agree with you that the source availability will probably grow beyond the substantial level it is already at. BlueSalix (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSalix, I can see it was in good faith. While I think one of the main contributors to this topic area was a troll (and since has been blocked), I can see that there is a sincere effort to provide information on this subject, however ill-defined it is at this moment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz, I very appreciate your comments. It means a lot after having had several other editors pile the invectives on me here. BlueSalix (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know whether it is a hoax or not, but the article is an original synthesis and perhaps more importantly, it is a duplicate of our article Passing (sociology) and uses a perfectly good word ("transracial") to mean something different from what it has historically meant. (See this article's talk page where I discuss "transracial adoption" and "transracial identification - which has nothing to do with changing one's gender identity.) (By the way, I take it there are other articles about this new meaning of "transracial" that are also up for AfD; wherever they are, this comment counts for all of them.) Neutron (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguably a hoax, and if it's not, then it's a matter of extremely marginal identification. Anecdotally, false reporting to troll transgender people produces the most coverage for this term, followed by coverage of apparent frauds like Dolezal, with any genuine cases being in vanishingly tiny numbers. So I argue an article is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the term. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a possible near-medical/psychological term, we need better sources than the ones provided (a few media ones), making it somewhere between a neologism and hoax. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Delete for neologism and recentism issues. This isn't an outright hoax, but it doesn't yet seem to be a notable concept - it's an article based off one temporary news story about one individual. I thought about proposing a merge to Passing (racial identity), but they're not the same thing - that article's about people from one racial group who are able to live as and be accepted as another, while this is about the psychological condition of a person believing they are a different race to what they are. That's a far less common phenomenon, and it would seem not yet a notable one, though it could become notable in future. Robofish (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish, thanks for your very well thought-out and enunciated comments. I definitely see where you're coming from. BlueSalix (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the excellent comments by Robofish and Liz, I am revisiting my "Keep" !vote and am fine with deletion pending future recreation in a few days or weeks when usage of the term has become more established. I've copied the contents of the article to my sandbox in the interim and would welcome community editing to improve it there. BlueSalix (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A psychological or psychiatric phenomenon does not become recognized in scholarly literature in a matter of days. This supposed phenomenon, based on a one-on-the-planet case, has not been demonstrated by anyone serious to be a real phenomenon (distinct from passing (racial identity) which is a behaviour rather than a condition). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly literature is not a prerequisite for coverage in WP. If a new star is discovered we can take quotes from qualified persons reported in RS to create an article on it - as we have done in this article with the NYU, UCI and other quotes (why are they "not serious"?) - we don't have to wait six months for it to appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
That point aside, I generally would just ask people to exhibit a little more sensitivity in how they couch their comments in this thread. I don't talk about my personal experiences on WP, because I don't edit from personal experience, but in this case I'm going to draw back the curtain and note that I'm an Hispanic male adopted by African-American parents and have encountered the processes of cultural assimilation Dolezal reports, though not to the extremes she took it. This was an important topic for me to explore, and I was particularly intrigued to learn about Bonilla-Silva's Latin-Americanization of Race Relations thesis during the construction of this article. It's not personally perturbing when some editors choose to call me things like "garbage" and a "troll" but I'd just like everyone to think there may be other people who come to this AfD who are having a more difficult time with self-identification and these terms can be genuinely hurtful or make them self-perceive as freaks or oddities. Wikipedia should be a safe place; comments like User:Drmies, User:SkyeriseRobofish, and User:Liz have left get their !vote across in a civil and succinct way. As they've proved, it's not necessary to fire-off a lot of insults - direct or indirect - while !voting. BlueSalix (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, if someone called you that, I hope someone else warned them for it--there is no room for that. And all joking aside, there's very little that's funny about any of this (except for the coverage on the Nightly Show, of course), certainly not for the subject of this media melee. I mean, it is certainly not fun for her, and all of us tweeting around and giving our opinions and 4channing all over the place, that's not something she deserves. Which reminds me, BlueSalix, and I hope you saw that in between all my snarky remarks, I do not deny that such a thing as "transracial identity" can exist, far from it. It's just that I don't want such an important thing to be written on the basis of a couple of passing comments and a bunch of...well, chit-chat. That time will come, no doubt, and when it does we will write it up good. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, Drmies, no one did. And that's fine, it's no big deal personally. Like I said, I'm more concerned about other people who come here and might perceive themselves to be freaks because Transracial has been hijacked by the talk radio circuit as a "ha ha" thing and one or two crusading Wikipedians feel the entire concept needs to be aggressively debunked as a tit-for-tat so are self-excusing language like "you're a troll/garbage/obvious hoax" etc. Also I didn't see you made any snarky remarks at all so I don't think you have any reason at all to apologize to anyone. BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought WP articles were CC licensed. I didn't realize I committed illegal copyright infringement by putting a copy in my sandbox to work on. My apologies. If I attribute it as per the Creative Commons license can I restore it? BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit has been removed by now, but as I understand it, it was copied from the transgender article (correct me if wrong). If that is the case, it speaks volumes of the POV nature and lack of merit of this article. The transgender article covers a topic that is a formal medical diagnosis and subject of an extensive scholarly literature; one cannot invent a psychological condition based on media coverage over less than a week of a single case and by copying an article about an unrelated psychological/medical condition. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I hereby correct you. There's nothing in the article that says Transracial is a medical diagnosis, nor - to the best of my knowledge - is it. Nor - again to the best of my knowledge - has anyone on WP claimed it was. BlueSalix (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really answer whether parts of the article was copied from the transgender article or any other similar article about an urelated medical-psychological condition. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer that. I am one of several contributors to the article. Wikipedia articles are written by editors like you and me, not some mysterious force. BlueSalix (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC
The article does indeed appear to have been started by BlueSalix with the first paragraph of the lede being a minor modification of that of the Transgender article. [4] Not entirely sure why anyone would deny that. Artw (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the line in question. Lede as it stands is now a little disjointed, and IMHO the article is sufficiently doomed that not too much effort should be put into repairing it, but if anyone wants to pput in something NOT taken from another article in a seeming attempt to cause offense please feel free. Artw (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fyddlestix. To assist me in possibly restructuring the article in the future, could you do me the favor of identifying which sources are unreliable? Some people have said the Sydney Morning Herald is unreliable and I've marked that down on my list; truthfully, this was an honest mistake by me as it is the first time in the many WP articles I've worked on I've heard the SMH is unreliable. Others have said Dr Ann Morning (h-index 3.4) is also unreliable and I've marked her down for removal as well. Dr David Goldberg (h-index 3.9) has also been noted as unreliable and I've marked him down. If you can cite other non-RS in the article, it would be very helpful to me. Or even just let me know if those three sum it up or if there's an h-index # I should be shooting for in identifying RS? Thanks very much and best - BlueSalix (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as general news sources go the SMH is pretty reliable. The problem is that sociological and/or medical concepts and definitions also need to exist in the academic literature, which in this case they don't. -- haminoon (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the articles claims this is a medical concept or definition. I personally view it, at this stage, as a cultural phenomenon. And cultural phenomenons absolutely do get articles absent scholarly journals. BlueSalix (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that a polite "I disagree, here's why" will get you further than sarcasm. I looked at and read the sources, most of them are just news coverage of the current controversy, there are a few that use "transracial" in a quite different sense (in the context of adoption) and a very small number of sources that consider the concept this article is supposed to be about in any kind of depth. It's not enough to hang an article on. Maybe one day when the Dolezal controversy has died down and people have thought/written about this in some depth, but right now it's too soon and the sources just aren't there. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say "I disagree, here's why" because I'm not sure I do. I was asking some questions about your opinion to better inform myself. That said I don't think "the sources just aren't there," which is the call we've heard throughout this thread, really qualifies given the breadth, depth, and quality of sources that are, in fact there, which have been repeatedly pointed out, and which are universally considered RS in every other article in which they're used (The Sydney Morning Herald is now non-RS? Really?). Responding with "well, no, I can't say why these sources are non-RS, they just aren't" is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BlueSalix (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The definition of transracial this article uses actually goes back at least a couple of decades. It has often been used by TERFs and has been used almost exclusively to mock and deride transgender people. There are few if any reliable secondary sources on this definition. I can reference plenty of examples of this usage but that would be WP:OR. A lot of this article quotes academics talking to reporters in very brief context-less quotes, but none that I know of have published on the transracial identity. I've checked Ann Morning but not the others. Most of this article as it stands now is original research or very close to it and synthesis. At this stage it fails WP:NEO and I don't think there is enough written about the term yet to write a reliable article about it. -- haminoon (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic, well-written article, and supported by reliable sources. Kelly hi! 08:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Haminoon's additional context is useful and fascinating, and I encourage other commentators to read it when factoring things in. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hamimoon-- a combination of a non-notable neologism with heavy use of WP:SYN to combine sources to apparently support it. In the event that this actually becomes a mainstream term, we can always re-create the article later. There now seems to be such a string consensus for deletion that I'd go as far as suggesting a speedy delete for this now. -- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also a similar AfD at Racial transformation (individual) -- The Anome (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Too much coverage from diverse and reputable sources for WP:HOAX to apply. Yes, it's a relatively newly-popular term, but again, there's sufficient coverage and discussion from diverse sources provided in the article to dissuade me from voting to delete at this time. (I was preparing to vote "Userfy" when I first read through this AFD. Then I actually looked at the article.) Townlake (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to have to strongly disagree on the quality of the article - in the unlikely event of this being a keep it;s going to need rewriting from the ground up so it isn't generalized from the actions of a single person. Artw (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're answering a question that nobody asked. I didn't say the article is high quality. We're not discussing whether the article is good, we're discussing whether it should be deleted. Townlake (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so minus the actual text I don't see the sources in isolation as justifying it either, being that they mostly revolve around one individual. WP:TNT would seem to apply, except I'm more sure about the "blow it up" part than the "start it over". Artw (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that it should be deleted per WP:SNOW at this point, as there seems to be consensus that it is a neologism or hoax, and that the article is WP:SYN and WP:OR based on the actions of one person (who has her own article). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Artw (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As 4 editors..real editors, not throwaway socks or single-purpose accounts...have opined to keep, I think we're just short of snowfall territory at this point, plus it has only been running for a day. Early closes are usually just an invitation for Deletion Review complaints, so it doesn't hurt to go the full 7 days and get an iron-clad closure. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another option may be to merge to Racial transformation (individual) if that article is kept. The AfD there looks like a probably "no consensus" so far. Kelly hi! 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The word transracial is not a neologism as it appears in the OED with usage going back over 40 years. It is easy to find it used in a respectable encyclopedia discussing the case of Moses, which goes back millennia. As for the topic, there are entire books about it such as Changing Race, "The book identifies the multidimensional nature of individual racial identity ... When is race determined? At birth? Death? And by whom? By parents? By an unknown observer? ..." Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't define it but it appears to be using the definition Janice Raymond used facetiously in 1994, which is for a person to change from one race to another. This definition is definitely not in the OED online database. -- haminoon (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was started with a definition but has been subject to hostile editing. If Raymond was discussing the topic over 20 years ago then this is further evidence of the topic's age and notability. Moreover, you fail to address Changing Race — a substantial source which clearly bears on the topic. For another similar example, see Partly Colored — another book which focusses on groups who commonly can and do make choices in such matters. This work clearly uses the word transracial in the sense of this page and was written over 5 years ago. The idea that this concept and terminology has only just been invented is blatantly false. Academics have been discussing this stuff for years. Andrew D. (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The earlier definition in the article was "Transracial is the state of one's racial identity or expression not matching one's natural skin color," which was copied from the transgender lede. This is not what Rodriguez's book is about. It is the definition Raymond was using but she wasn't discussing the "transracial" identity or the "transchronological" identity - she was making up non-existent identities to further her hate speech against transgender people. Bow is defining a neologism that doesn't seem to have caught on. Her definition is quite different to Raymond's and is closer to what Rodriguez is talking about. Recently she has talked about it as "social betweenness" and has denied it is about changing from one race to another. The quote you have linked uses the word to mean reaching across cultures and spanning a divide. -- haminoon (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article started with a definition copied from the transgender article, which I removed for obvious reasons. Nobody seems keen to replace it with a proper definition supported by sources, but the option to do so there. Artw (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be many existing pages which relate to this topic such as cultural appropriation. These further demonstrate that we have nothing very new here. Even the supposed neologism already existed as a dab page leading to several other pages. The only reason that we seem to be having a deletion discussion is that the matter is in the news and this has excited some drama. As we have numerous pages and plenty of sources, the matter will take time to resolve by ordinary editing in the ordinary way. Deletion is disruptive to this process and is contrary to our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was put up for deletion soon after it being created and this would have happened regardless of it being in the news. I don't quite follow your argument here. Since the article doesn't have a definition I think if it survives the AFD it will end up resembleing a dictionary entry with editors adding several different definitions. -- haminoon (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is that the claim of the nomination that this is a neologism is false; that the word transracial has been in use for some time and that there are plenty of academic sources, including full-length books, which discuss the topic in detail. Even this were a neologism, this would still not be a reason to delete as it has great notability and so readers should be taken to some appropriate page(s). For examples of more novel neologisms see Grexit, hashtag and twerk and notice that they are all blue links not red links. See also WP:BLUDGEON; my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems very real. Just because it may sound silly and there is also a media circus, does not mean it does not exist.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this is a very useful term. It opens dialog about racial issues that many people face. We've long known that something like this existed for many decades if not centuries. There could be many reasons why a person may choose this designation. Racial self-hatred may be one reason but not the only one. I've known a person who stop hanging out with his non-Spanish speaking friends to be with Hispanics, changed his name and called himself Hispanic -- even though Hispanic is not a race. I think the designation is useful for open dialog. I fully support transracials since race is simply a social construct anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfireman84 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Samfireman84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid rationale to retain an article in this project, nor are your personal anecdotes regarding the matter. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Samfireman84 appears to have created their account solely to make the above comment. -- The Anome (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no redirect) - A common prefix + racial identity can mean many different things. What we would need are reliable sources which show that this is (a) a well defined subject, (b) notable (WP:NEO), and (c) distinct from other topics we already cover. I don't see that we anything close to sufficient sources to do that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain further? Artw (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Right now, it's a POV fork of Rachel Dolezal and for that reason alone, it is not presently appropriate as an article. As utterly ridiculous as the term is and as experts are nearly universal in their debunking of it as a legitimate identity, there is no question that it is notable at this point. We have articles about notable hoaxes and so there is no reason that an encyclopedic topic about this term/concept could not be written. --B (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N and WP:NEO. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transracial_identity&oldid=1087615386"