Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Procedural close to lessen the drama and misunderstanding. This DAB was a DAB before the recent hullabaloo. The discussion should focus on the two recently added articles, not the pages that link thereto. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This WP:NEO term (with the possible exception of its usage in transracial adoption) is a hoax, pushed by members of the 4chan forums[1] in response to the Rachel Dolezal case. It is currently being used to promote another article that is subject to an AfD, where the general opinion is that it is a hoax. There is no need for a disambiguation page for "transracial", as the word is only used in one established and real context, namely adoption, so it should either be redirected there or deleted. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close Bad nom. A dab is not an article. (and incidentally was in existence before the content dispute the nom is pushing). Although AfD is the correct venue, the nom is treating this as just one meaning, rather than as a dab with valid (or plausible) entries (at least one of which is in existence for 10 years). Widefox; talk 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hours ago I marked this June 2005 dab for cleanup (which is the measured response already in action) can fix it up as there may be merit in the dab but the three articles need checking. A dab page is not an article, and issues such as NEO are already considered and discussed at the talk. Widefox; talk 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are many, many references to her being Transracial. It is exactly the same as Transgender. Man trapped in a woman's body - black woman trapped in a white body.--Andhisteam (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article but a dab page. Widefox; talk 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Close The current disambiguation page uses "transracial" correctly - for inter-racial adoption. I believe you may be attempting to delete a vandalised version of the page. Indeed this new usage of the word is a hoax that has no place in Wikipedia. -- haminoon (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had already marked the dab earlier today for clean-up (see the talk page), and assessed the validity of the entries. I've asked for more opinions from other dab project editors. Those subtle dab issues (e.g. synonyms aren't well defined in WP:MOSDAB) but that discussion was bulldozed by this ill-thought out nom, while at the same time edit warring and ignoring talk page (nom has been reported). Widefox; talk 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Transracial adoption. There is no need for transracial to point to Racial transformation as that concept doesn't appear to be used with the word transracial. Racial transformation (individual) is just a hoax. I've struck my previous vote after investigating further. -- haminoon (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dab has at least 2 valid entries Transracial adoption and Interracial (disambiguation), User:Haminoon and there's sources for the term which may be worked into some of the other entries to make more valid entries [2] [3] . Cleanup not deletion is the correct procedure (as already marked) Widefox; talk 22:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just added Interracial (disambiguation) then, but there is no indication to how it related to "Transracial". I suggest you read those sources you posted more carefully - they're not saying what you think they say. -- haminoon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you check wikt:transracial. The point is there's usage in RS and this has useful, plausible entries just like Interracial. I added the wikt link to the dab earlier today. Of course, I'm seeing if it's a valid dab (which it currently appears to be). Must be silly season, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial was recently closed keep with similar plausible entries (basically a synonym for this). Widefox; talk 22:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd and 3rd plausible valid entry per WP:FURTHERDAB WP:INTDABLINK (making at least 3 valid entries):

Interracial (disambiguation) (per wikt/commonsense)
Passing (racial identity)

User:Haminoon Removing them [4] doesn't make them invalid. Widefox; talk 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Interracial" was added to the wiktionary entry yesterday with no citation. Passing has absolutely nothing to with transracial either. -- haminoon (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial Transformation a long-standing redirect (a lowercase version should be used, but considering the toxicity currently, I'll wait until this has quietened down). Widefox; talk 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - where transracial and interracial/multiracial are used
Multiracial (per above, obviously some of these entries don't belong in the body, but in the See also Widefox; talk 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a place to promote transracial as a term in a way to promote the (also nominated for deletion) racial transformation article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a 10 year old dab, 10 year old redirect, so note to closing admin that all arguments based on this weeks WP:RECENTISM promotion of the term (and any reaction to that single WP:NEO term here) is invalid. Widefox; talk 23:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a 10-year old DAB; this was first an article that was deleted 10 years ago, and then recreated as a redirect to racial transformation. Then last year it was turned into a DAB, going to transracial adoption and racial transformation. Recently "racial transformation (individual)" was added to it. Sorry, I don't see the point of this DAB. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, it's a 10 year old redirect, and a dab for over a year which predates the fever here by over a year. Widefox; talk 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors from the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial User:Clarityfiend User:NinjaRobotPirate User:Artw User:Davey2010 Widefox; talk 00:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I didn't say it should be deleted because of recentism. I said it was related to the racial transformation (individual) article (also not a new one), which I noted was also up for deletion. The nominator mentioned the drama, but it's not being argued as recentism by people supporting delete. BTW I don't think it's a good idea to leave "note to closing admin" comments. They are capable of evaluating the situation fine. :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deleting the dab and that one article are different discussions (and the article has consequences for only one entry on this dab). The dab predates that article. The dab had enough valid entries before and will have after that article is gone. Further, until the article is deleted (so long as the term is in the article) it is still a valid entry in the dab per WP:DABMENTION. The article AfD has a proper note to closing {{notavote}} (now added here) and that suffers from NEO proponents, whereas here reaction against the proponents (of which I am not either, however many dab diffs or removing valid entries from the dab folk do). Widefox; talk 03:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dab page, there's several meanings (not just the NEO) e.g. transracial adoption Widefox; talk 01:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a disambiguation for a reason. The term is unstable, so it's a good call on WP's part to have this page. (Oh, and the term has a tremendous amount of usage, so its a valid concept for a bunch of articles, but they all need better names because of the instability of the neologism at present. Within ten years, "transracial" will settle down.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transracial#Proposed dab has the 5 entries I see as (currently) valid and useful for readers, similar to Interracial. If that goes to 4 or 3 it's still valid per WP:TWODABS. Widefox; talk 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking about language. Neologisms settle over time. There are a few that get broader, but those are the ones that fill a need for vague comparatives. The disambiguation may need to stay for another ten years, but "humans speaking and writing this word will begin to mean more specific things within ten years" is all I meant. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a useful DAB (it gets used!). It is spurious to pretend to delete after 10 years. XavierItzm (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone arguing for it to be deleted on a timer? I know that I argued that, like all neologisms, its range of meaning will narrow within ten years. That's a prediction about the word & has nothing to do with this debate today. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to transracial adoption. The other meanings seem to be made up. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the so-called dab entries are legit. At best, they're WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's something of a neologism, but it meets the most basic notability criteria -- substantial coverage in reliable sources. This strikes me as less a "one-and-done" issue than the beginning of a broader dialogue, given our society's present interest in transsexuality and the Dolezal incident. 74.127.175.164 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no people who identify as "transracial", no medical condition, no organizations who advocate it, nothing. This is just a hoax concocted by 4chan and others to make fun of Dolezal or transgendered people. The concept supposedly covered by the term is known by another, established term, namely passing, which in contrast to "transracial" is not an attempt to ridicule anyone. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 02:16, 16 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) 09:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - This article is a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. It is not an article. It is clear that many people who voted keep or redirect did not look at the page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful as a DAB BlueSalix (talk) 18:46, 16 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.