Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemale

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 merge and redirect. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shemale

Shemale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Little more than a puffed up dictionary definition. This should really be a redirect to Transwoman, with the relevant differences in usage mentioned there. I realise the word isn't "politically correct", but the majority of people who use the term don't mean it in a derogatory way, so most users searching for "shemale" would expect to see a transgender-related article, rather than one about the usage of the actual word. If this word was primarily used in an offensive way it might be different, but it's the intention, rather than the effect, which is important here. Delete and redirect. Saikokira 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No decision yet. On the one hand, the nominator's claim that the 'majority of people who use the term don't mean it in a derogatory way' is utterly false and unsubstantiated, whereas the word's clearly derogatory usage has been well-cited. It is a slur against transgendered women - the derogatory nature of which is certainly not diminished by its use in pornography. Moreover, the nominator's exact claim has been a cause for repeated, tendentious editing (inevitably without citation meeting WP:V) by a number of anon and 'single-role' accounts. However, I do agree that the article as it stands could certainly be redirected into a more general article topic, and an appropriate mention of the obviously derogatory nature of the word placed therein. I'm not sure which way is best, so I'll mull it over and will observe the comments of others before deciding whether to back this deletion for an entirely separate reason than the nominator's, or whether to reject the deletion as unwarranted for the reasons given. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A notable term clearly in need of expansion. Notability is declared right off, and while it could do with expansion, that's certainly not the realm of deletion. The nominator's assumption that the word is not used derogatory is imprecise. While it's not always used offensively, the usage as such IS frequent. Presuming nobody else takes a run at it, I'll try to expand the article tomorrow evening. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick search reveals an alternate article stored in userspace which appears to cover the term more comprehensively. While the references could use some work, the basic structure of the article appears to be both sound and easily expandable. I've invited User:Lwollert to comment on this. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, v2 I merged a lot of information from the linked userpage, which contained a lot of information not related to "Shemale" as an insult. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, v3 Looks like Ryan took care of pretty much everything. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThere is a long history of conflicting edits, with many in the last few weeks, and the cur version seems to be a compromise that removed much of the original content. The concept is clearly notable, its more than a dicdef, and the content from LQuilter (and probably other eds.) should be merged, and then a more informative consensus versions sought. Deletion isn't a good way to start improvement. DGG 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, this article still needs a lot of work and shouldn't be deleted to accomplish that. However, if it is to remain as it has been the past week or so, deletion would seem better. I was involved somewhat with the current revision and support reverting to the version referenced above by Lankybugger. --Patrick80639 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks. Sometimes the "Bull in a china shop" style of editing does have an effect. I'm glad consensus is developing towards this new version of the article, even if it took an AFD to get this sort of attention on it. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I totally applaud your efforts as well. If there is a 'consensus' to support the new version, I'm happy to accept it and work to improve the article. As an aside, this could have been handled thru editing the article or a discussion on the article's 'talk page' without an AfD, but I appreciate each of your efforts. Thanks for being bold - I try to do so too. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • CommentFee free to use the userpage version - that was the intention in the first place. Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 04:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Reverted back to the version discussed on this page. I forgot to sign in, just wanted to make this known. --Patrick80639 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - way more notable than a mere dicdef. The wikt link will attest to that. Furthermore, redirecting to transwoman is bound to be problematic due to its largely pejorative definition regardless of what the nom states above. This on its own indicates that it will be problematic. It does need rework, however, and I see that Lankybugger has already made a reasonable start on it - Alison ☺ 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a very notable term, and the article goes beyond dicdef and etymology, discussing the cultural connotations of the term in an encyclopedic context. Krimpet (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Transwoman, both articles talk about the same issue, I think it should go in a subsection of the official term -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that this is getting off topic, but, no merge, just as Faggot has an article separate from Gay.Sancho 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge The way this page keeps reverting to information that is not cited and mostly POV, I feel this is best. --Patrick80639 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked and every single paragraph of the article is cited (except the 'list' which I myself just tagged). Patrick, can you elaborate on specifically what 'not cited, POV' content you refer to in your delete vote? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper way to deal with a revert war is to protect the page until discussion on the talk page resolves the dispute, not to delete the page. The proper way to deal with POV material is to fix it. Sancho 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading others' reasons for merging this with Transwoman, I've come to agree and have changed my vote from "delete". This article is filled with redundant information. Also, term is so common, many people may indeed use it to find information about transwomen, not about the term itself--Patrick80639 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Gives a definition, usage both historically and in current culture, and interpretation. I believe this is an encyclopedic article separate from the information that should be provided in Transwoman. This is about the word (and not only in the manner a dictionary would cover it), not the people it refers to. Sancho 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Both are short articles: one about the subject matter, one about a derogatory term for it. Why do we need two separate articles for that? Sandstein 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as stated above. There has been some mention that we ought to keep it per the faggot/gay analogy, but when you excise the overlapping material between this article and transwoman it is clear that the analogy does not hold - the only new information this article provides is a dicdef and a brief etymology, which is rather self-evident in a term like this. Merging relevant content into a small section on transwoman is more than appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. More than a dictionary definition—and if someone wants an article on transgendered women, transwoman is linked in the first line. --Dookama 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for Cleanup I think it should've been cleaned-up first before someone decided to use AfD nod material. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Transwoman. Article does not seem to stand alone and would help expand the Transwoman article. About the redirect, I'm fairly ignorant so I had no idea it was a derogatory term. If I wanted information about this topic, I would probably search Shemale. I think a disclaimer at the top of the page (if a redirect is used) should explain that it is a derogatory term. hombre de haha 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, not per nom but because I think this would work better with Transwoman. Kolindigo 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge, As per faggot/gay and also because the word shemale does not belong in an encyclopedic article about transwomen. Just because both articles lack some information does not mean they should be merged; the derogatory usage of the word shemale is quite different to the actual usage, meaning and content of the transwoman article. Both need cleanup. Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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.