Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real-Life Experience (transgender)

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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Life Experience (transgender)[edit]

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

Undesirable content fork from Transitioning (transgender)

I'm nominating the recently-created article Real-Life Experience (transgender) - a recent content fork of Transitioning (transgender) by User:El3ctr0nika - for deletion in order to restore the prior state of affairs, where Real life experience has been redirected to Transitioning (transgender) since January 2012, when User:AvicBot detected a double-redirect and corrected the self-reflexive pointer to what was apparently an empty article.

I argue that this content fork is a bad idea because:

1) Creating a separate article on the "Real-Life Experience" (or "RLE") tears the discussion of the RLE out of the general context of "transitioning", which discusses briefly various aspects of sex-transitioning that would cover all those who do so, even when they are not seeking legal access to Sex reassignment therapy. All of those come into play when one is seeking to transition under the rules of the WPATH Standards of Care ("SOC").

2) Breaking out a separate article creates yet another maintenance challenge for those editors among us (including me) who are trying to prevent vandalism and make updates and incremental improvements to the article. Addressing vandalism in articles with trans* and gender content is an ongoing headache, and this fork will just add another page that needs to be patrolled, where well-meaning editors will likely add duplicate content that exists in Transitioning (transgender).

thanks… - bonze blayk (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To summarize: This WP:SUBARTICLE content is best understood in context and more easily maintained within the article Transitioning (transgender), from which it was split here without adhering to the rules provided at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, and the total length of both articles, now at some 5k chars apiece, is only 10k chars. Please note also that the WPATH Standards of Care Version 7, which presumably will become the standard employed by care providers, no longer uses the terminology of the "Real Life Experience" employed in previous versions, but refers solely to "transition" within its text - the SOC V7. thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s). Two things that I would just like to mention:

"This WP:SUBARTICLE content is best understood in context [...] within the article Transitioning (transgender)" — I disagree, and would actually suggest the opposite; the transitioning (transgender) page is, at present, essentially a brief overview of the subject of transition as a whole, and does not really go into depth on any specific or particular aspect of it. In contrast, the current content of the RLE article is fairly comprehensive, and if moved back to the transitioning (transgender) article in its current state, would feel very out of place. It might even have the potential to confuse some people (especially those who are merely looking for a brief overview of the subject and are not knowledgeable about nor interested in becoming knowledgeable about the RLE, which is likely — arguably — to be the majority). Like the subject of sex reassignment surgery (SRS), the RLE is a relatively small but nonetheless very complex aspect of transitioning as a whole. If SRS were to be explored in the current transitioning (transgender) article in a similarly comprehensive depth to the content that exists on the RLE at present, that too would feel very out of place. As an example, imagine a comprehensive analysis of the eligibility/readiness criteria for SRS in the current transitioning (transgender) article; it just wouldn't feel right, nor would it be appropriate for that matter. Accordingly, like that of SRS, I feel that the best place for the current content on the RLE is to reside in its own article.
"Please note also that the WPATH Standards of Care Version 7, which presumably will become the standard employed by care providers, no longer uses the terminology of the 'Real Life Experience' employed in previous versions, but refers solely to "transition" within its text - the SOC V7" — This is a bit misleading, as well as somewhat inaccurate for that matter. The current SOC (v7) refer to it (the RLE) quite distinctly as a "preoperative, 12-month experience of living in an identity-congruent gender role" (which is identical to what they previously called the "RLE" in v6 and prior editions), and not particularly, or even at all actually, as "transitioning" (for example, there is not a single instance of the word "transition" in the section on the subject (which can be found on page 61)). The reason for the change in terminology, in my opinion, is likely because of the fact that there is a degree of stigma attached to the term "RLE" nowadays (due to the controversy and criticism that it garnered when it was an absolute prerequisite for hormone replacement therapy previously; the SOC have since made significant efforts to distance themselves from "gatekeeping"). In any case, "RLE" is still perfectly valid terminology, and is without a doubt still the most widely employed term used to refer to the subject. That being said, it should probably be mentioned in the RLE article that WPATH no longer calls it as such, and I do intend to add such a note to the article in the future.
el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. I think this article would be better as a chapter in the main article. Try to trim a bit if needed but no need for a separate article. Insomesia (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this is an unneeded WP:SPINOUT. It can be sufficiently covered in the article it's already covered in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note there have been about 26 redirects created pointing to the article. Insomesia (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi everyone. I seem to have been posting in the wrong thread. Whoops. In any case, I already detailed my thoughts on this matter here (for those who would like to see all of the discussion), but I'll summarize the relevant/important points here:

The RLE is a complex topic that in my opinion is notable enough for and well-deserving of its own comprehensive article. It is much more than merely something transgender people do while transitioning; the RLE is almost always a medical requirement to have surgery, and is sometimes even required for hormone therapy. If it were not, I doubt the term would even be used much. Hence, I feel that the subject is of great enough importance to justify/necessitate having its own article.
Having its own article would improve the visibility of the content. The reason that I moved the RLE content to its own article in the first place was because I was looking on Wikipedia for information on the subject for personal reasons but had difficulty finding it and at first assumed that there was no such content on Wikipedia yet. I almost created a new page on the subject from scratch then and there. Luckily I kept looking though and eventually managed to find it tucked away in the transitioning (transgender) article. But to reduce the chances that others would miss the content like I almost did, I moved it to its own article, and have since considerably expanded the content. I intend to expand it significantly further as well, namely by adding content on alternative, non-WPATH/SOC definitions of the RLE, but also by expanding the proof of completion section, among other additions. Which brings me to my next point...
Problems with WP:WEIGHT. The Real-Life Experience article is already about half the size of the transitioning (transgender) article going by character count. Once I have finished my expansions to the RLE article, I would imagine that, if it were to go back to being a mere section of the transitioning (transgender) article, there would be problems with weight, in that perhaps half or even more of the entire transitioning (transgender) article would pertain solely to the RLE, when the RLE is a relatively minor part of the process of transition as a whole.
I do not think that issues related to convenience of maintenance or vandalism prevention should get in the way of (in my opinion) reasonable and beneficial changes. Also, I really do not think it is that big of a deal to add one more article to one's watchlist. Further, I think that it would be unlikely that content from the RLE article would be duplicated in transitioning (transgender) as the RLE is already briefly summarized and linked to with a "main article" template in the transitioning (transgender) article, and both articles link to one another. In any case, I will be watching the pages to prevent vandalism and content duplication; hence, if others like bonze blayk do not want to monitor them, they can rest assured that they do not necessarily have to. In addition, I'll set my options to be notified of changes to pages on my watchlist via e-mail instantly (whether while at my computer or on my phone), so I'll be quick to revert any vandalism.
That's about all, I think. Hope I'm not too late to the discussion. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. El3ctr0nika's description correctly reflects most of the literature on the topic. Transition is generally used to refer to the social/societal aspects, whereas RLE is a very specific, medically supervised endeavour, and the RSs generally focus on one or the other. I'd consider linking as "main article"s, however.— James Cantor (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite encyclopedic and educational in nature. Appropriate page for article creation. However, I'd suggest merge discussion take place at the article's talk page, not at AFD. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (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.