Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Klinefelter XXY

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. This does not mean that the article should not be heavily edited to resolve any issues. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Klinefelter XXY[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork and contains extensive original research in the form of generous interpretations of case reports (primary sources). There are no sharply defined boundaries for what constitutes Klinefelter syndrome (KS) based on recent expert review,[1], so any article attempting to establish a definition of what does not constitute KS is original research. Additionally, this article is redefining Klinefelter based on gender identity, with no support from the medical literature (a single case report is not sufficient). The article was created during a content dispute (see Talk:Klinefelter syndrome) and has an obvious ideological POV. Novangelis (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Novangelis (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article Non-Klinefelter XXY should be deleted, but the issues that it raises need to be discussed in the main article. In determining whether or not the definition of Klinefelter has "no sharply defined boundaries" it's clear that a sharp boundary is what prompted creation of this separate page: a definition of Klinefelter that is intrinsically based on gender identity, as being a diagnosis in men. There is evidence of clinical discussion of this issue, see for example Herlihy and Gillam (2011) Thinking outside the square: considering gender in Klinefelter syndrome and 47, XXY, in International Journal of Andrology. While this is a medical article, medical treatment intersects with human rights issues. Consequential treatment paradigms for people with 47,XXY have so been discussed in the Australian Senate, see discussion of the inquiry report Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia by Senator Rachel Siewert on 25 March 2014. Trankuility (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was significant rejection of the issues this article raised being included in the main article, as you can see in the Talk for KS page. It was suggested that the page be created to address the issues separately as there is significant case reports and research to make the case for the existence of Non KS XXY. If you view the Talk Page for Non KS XXY, you will find a very good suggestion from Luke Surl to rename the article Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. I would suggest that be amended to "Gender and Sex Chromosome Anomalies" since not all gender issues surrounding SCAs are rooted in identity; there is evidence that some people with an SCA have ambiguous genitalia or are born female due to other genes on their sex chromosomes. This would allow for expansion of the other SCAs not included in the XXY/KS line that also generate gender identity differences. There was a 66 year old man in China with the micro penis who was recently told he was an XO and a woman although he had lived his life as a man. He is but one case of an XO male as others exist in medical literature. Perhaps this would be a way around the KS problems noted in the original proposal for deletion. Finally, the human rights issue is no small issue and should not be ignored. As always, I am open to reasonable suggestions and ways to conform to Wikipedia rules and guidelines with future edits but see the includion of this research as viable and important from a medical and human rights perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAWilson52 (talk • contribs)

I approved this article at AfC a few months ago. It was one of those borderline cases that could have easily been failed. At the time of approval, I removed a fair bit of material that was too POV. The article has remained on my watchlist since, and I have made a few edits and contributed to the talk page.

The crux of this issue is that it is debatable whether the subject of the article exists, i.e. whether a person can be physiologically the same as a Klinefelter syndrome sufferer (XXY and SRY-positive), but, due to their gender identity, not have Klinefelter syndrome. Most medical definitions of Klinefelter syndrome consider only the physiological, so the question of gender identity is more a social science one. The article's major contributor (who used to be named User:BeyondXXY,Inc) clearly has a POV on the issue, and, in some senses, the mere existence of an article with the name "Non-Klinefelter XXY" is an endorsement of their position.

On the other hand, Wikipedia does have articles on subjects of debatable existance, and CAWilson52 has shown a willingness to work with Wikipedia's POV guidelines. In some sense, if the article is about this as a social phenomenon, rather than a medical idea, then as long as there is sufficient coverage of such a phenomenon in reliable sources the article can exist regardless of what the medical definitions are.

Therefore, I propose that the article be moved to Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. This is a title that is POV neutral. It also broadens the scope of the article to cover all Sex Chromosome Anomalies, not just XXY, which for an article on a social phenomenon is more appropriate. As per standard POV guidelines, the article should authoritatively state any position that is debatable, and instead reflect what is written in the reliable sources.

Restructuring the article as such may initially reduce it to a near-stub, but hopefully with due care and attention this topic could be a decent part of the enyclopedia.

--LukeSurl^{t c} 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this study lumps all the varied karyotypes under KS. This was a question of much discussion on the KS wiki page when I first sought inclusion of female XXYs on that page. Regardless of where, the validity of inclusion somewhere is strengthened since we know that it is the most common sex chromosome aneuploidy in humans and a significant enough portion of those will have gender identity issues as well as physical gender variances.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540567

I do like the idea of the information being moved to Gender Identity and Sex Chromosome Anomalies. Am happy to be a part of tweaking and adding other karyotypes of gender variability in the research to flesh such an entry out to being one worthy of the Wikipedia. CAWilson52 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's reasons. At best it appears that some of this content should be merged to a more appropriate page. mikeman67 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure The topic seems to be covered in literature. I am not judging the quality of the information in this article or of the sources from which it was derived, but it seems like there is enough here to think this might have its own article. The deletion arguments seem to be that this is article makes nuance and distinction of a broader topic, and this information ought not be separated from the broader topic. Could this be merged somewhere? Would that please everyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (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.