Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual-role transvestism

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-role transvestism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:N. We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. This article has always been a poor-quality stub with poor sourcing, and in addition, this diagnosis is being phased out of the ICD. I've created a new section in the Crossdressing article that covers the topic: Cross-dressing#Medical_views. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – plugging this term into Google scholar returns just shy of two-hundred hits. A lot of them are passing mentions, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't enough content in there to add up to GNG. That having been said, I don't really have an opinion on redirecting to the above section on WP:NOPAGE grounds. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator has been edit-warring this matter; was reverted by multiple editors and now is forum-shopping by bringing the matter here. As the topic was a formal medical diagnosis, referenced in numerous sources, the suggestion that it should be deleted seems absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an illness formally diagnosed by the nationally-recognised American Psychiatric Association, and supported by eminent WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is still a medical diagnosis, and to not have an article on a diagnosis would be unprecedented as far as I know; and also because diagnoses meet WP:GNG by their very nature. Any diagnosis, after all, must have medical peer-reviewed literature describing it. I don't think NOPAGE should apply in this case, as medical conditions are best served by having their own articles, rather than being buried in an article mainly about a societal topic. All that said, though this is not a reason for deletion, the article does have room for improvement. It's not a problem if it remains short however. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2019 (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.