Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Xenogender 2021

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Xenogender | Result: Keep[edit]

This article has been requested to be deleted before. See here for that discussion.

Xenogender (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Delete, for reasons explained below. This article is too potentially harmful to keep in its current state, and fixing it would require the creation of a new article. 2600:1002:B01C:8B20:0:1E:236F:1401 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. Fix the issues with it, we gain nothing by nuking it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    If I tried to fix the issues, I would be deleting major sections of the page to the point where it would be questionable if the remainder could sustain an article (outside of draftspace). At that point, it might be better to start over. Plus, I don't want anything written from a transmediacalist point of view in the mainspace.2600:1002:B01C:8B20:0:1E:236F:1401 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Try proposing your edits in draftspace first and see if there are other sections you can expand upon. Major changes to an article are fine, just copy it to draftspace and propose them on the main article's talkpage. You can also register an account and do it in your own user subspace. I'll personally be watching the Xenogender talkpage discussions so if you propose something, I can at least look it over. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. There seems to be only minor issues with it, nothing that can't be fixed in a single edit. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Seems fine except for the unformatted citations. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. I fail to see how this is “potentially harmful”. Any issues should be fixed by editing, not deleting the page. Christopher (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


  1. Otherkin already exists as an article. Oxyaena Harass 13:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    Otherkin are different concepts to my understanding. Both do seem to be the product of similar types of minds and originated in the same community, but I'd say they're still different enough to warrant two different pages since debunking it is on different grounds. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


This topic may be missional, but this article looks like it was written by Kalvin Garrah. It makes problematic assertions like saying that gender is a social construct is "scientifically false", and is mocking of how some people present gender (even the Otherkin article is considerably nicer). Furthermore, with evidence brought up on the talk page that this article is linking to the social media pages of underage people, especially since many also are neurodivergent and could potentially be targets of harassment, I think this article in its current state is too problematic to keep. 2600:1002:B002:988:0:E:55DD:F501 (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Oxyaena Harass 09:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Have you considered just editing the page to fix the problems? Furthermore, the age concern isn't... that relevant to me when it comes to references in and of themselves. I would recommend removing the usernames from the main body of the article as per our unstated recommendation to prefer focusing on ideas over people. Removal should be our last resort, not the first button we press when an article has issues. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)