Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species dysphoria (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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Species dysphoria

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOT jrabbit05 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. jrabbit05 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for this isn't quite clear (what part of WP:NOT is in favor of this article's deletion?) but I will comment that the article's over-reliance on the Field Guide to Otherkin source should be rectified if the article is kept. --Equivamp - talk 02:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - I agree with Jrabbit05, this article is poorly resourced and that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. This article reads poorly, layout is haphazard and has multiple other issues to adequately describe in a couple paragraphs, IMHO it violates nearly every Wikipedia policy. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Equivamp, and have concerns about the hasty deletion of this article, given that it is a phenomenon experienced by apparently a significant number of people (to whom I have no relationship). Unfortunately I don't have time right now to comb through a number of essays and arguments in favor of keeping it so I will point out that it isn't that old of an article, and that if sources are lacking in actuality (as opposed to in the article) it could simply be that there needs to be more time for the phenomenon to generate research. In other words, per view two in WP:DEADLINE, "don't rush to delete articles," I would give this one more time and consider alternatives to deletion. Many people search Wikipedia looking for clues about what they're going through, and I was happier to see this included than I would to watch it be censored. It's a start. Let it have more time to grow. In the meantime it might help someone understand themselves better, and that seems a worthy cause indeed, regardless of whether it is meeting all the expectations of those proposing its deletion at the present time. In other words, I argue for compassion, whether that is official policy or not. --Squeeorama (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Squeeorama. Wikipedia explicitly denies "compassion" to unworthy texts. This is an encyclopaedia, operating by specific, foundational policies & guidelines, and not by feelings, no matter how worthy these might be. Editors are supposed to use their passion towards the work required by the project. Taka care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being poorly sourced and being a phrase based apparently entirely on the writings of one or very few academics. I suppose some content could be crunched together and placed on furry or bestiality pages, as the source material is focused on those topics at large. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely based on unreliable, fringe sources. The classification of this as an actual condition is just pseudoscience and not recognized as a real, possibly genetic condition as gender dysphoria is. The otherkin article is sufficient to explain the phenomenon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text that was mainly created by a kamikaze account and remains mostly uncorrupted by scientific and supportive evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2019 (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.