Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Klinefelter XXY (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Klinefelter XXY[edit]

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

Prior to the main part of the nomination, I should mention the article's recent history. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d removed much of the article's content, then posted on the talk page suggesting the article should be deleted. I have restored the version prior to the IP's edits prior to this nomination as the removed content's (lack of?) usefulness to the encylopedia is central to this discussion. 2601:648:8200:7cba:f1c7:b065:141a:e7d may wish to comment here, but if they do not, commentators here should have a look at their talk page comment which outlines a deletion rationale.

On reflection, despite being the AfC editor who approved this 3 years ago, I believe deletion is appropriate here. In the 2014 deletion discussion (no-consensus), I suggested moving to Gender identity and sex chromosome anomalies, which would be broader in scope. However, I now think that if such an article is created it would be better done from scratch rather than being based upon this article.

It seems apparent that this article was created as a content fork for Klinefelter syndrome, advancing a POV that a person with the XXY karyotype does not have Klinefelter syndrome if they do not identify as male. I believe content to this extent was bounced from the Klinefelter syndrome article. There is relevant discussion on Talk:Klinefelter syndrome.

The grounding in reliable sources is quite scant here. Although several papers are cited, it is not apparent that "non-Klinefelter XXY" is widely considered as a status for XXY persons (specifically SRY-positive XXY persons). This article gives a lot of weight to the "non-binary" gender category, I do not believe this weight is justified.

Overall, there's no evidence that XXY individuals identify as female or non-binary any more often than XY persons, and the inherent assertion that such persons having or not having Klinefelter syndrome being dependent on that identity is insufficiently supported. There does not seem to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an article on gender identity for XXY persons. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who contributed to the prior (no-consensus) AfD for this article: @Novangelis:, @Trankuility:, @CAWilson52:, @Mikeman67:, @Flyer22:, @Bluerasberry:, @Cirt:. --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I am still not ready to give an opinion about whether to keep or delete it. I gave a quick look. The sources seem fair but I did not read into them and do not know much about this. I will cross-post this to WP:LGBT for comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to describe people who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome but don't identify as their given gender. It's thus something that belongs at the article for Klinefelter syndrome and possibly in a section of its own; if it has coverage, but I'm not really finding usage of the term, and there's no sense redirecting "non-Klinefelter" to "Klinefelter." Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/integrate into Klinefelter syndrome Thanks for the ping. My views remain that this article should be deleted with its content appended to a section of the main article for Klinefelter syndrome. The term "Non-Klinefelter XXY" does not appear to be in meaningful use, but the term XXY is very much in use by persons with XXY sex chromosomes, and to some of those persons it avoids the male-specific connotations of Klinefelter syndrome. Trankuility (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2016 (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.