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. I recommend that editors continue to explore merging Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and Lisa Littman; it seems to me from the discussion that there might be enough notability here for one article, but perhaps not for two. Sandstein 08:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Littman[edit]

Lisa Littman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There was a consensus on this article's talk page six months ago ([[1]])to nominate at AfD as article fails notability tests WP:BLP1E (Subject is only notable for controversy surrounding a study she published) and WP:PROF (Subject is not notable as an academic). (As well as other policies mentioned in that discussion.) Since then no new reporting has come out to offer subject or study notability. Article has also been discussed at BLP noticeboard here: [[2]]

I am also nominating the associated page Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria which was just created, also against consensus from the same discussion, as violating WP:RS and WP:MEDRS (subject has been described in a single study which is under review). Article was also discussed and consensus was not to create for same reasons among others, 6 months ago, at WikiProject Medicine, here: [[3]].Safrolic (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have notified page creators and the original editors involved in all three linked discussions (there was significant overlap).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is clearly notable under general notability per WP:N, as established by at least the following list of reliable sources that discuss Littman and/or ROGD. In previous talk page discussions, articles about the subject in established media sources such as The Economist and The Wall Street Journal have been discounted by editors who count only WP:MEDRS in establishing notability; in fact, citations to sources that pass muster under WP:RS but not under WP:MEDRS have been systematically removed from the article more than once. Click to expand the collapsed lists of sources establishing general notability:

Based on at least the preceding lists, the continued existence of the Wikipedia article is more than justified, and content should be added that cites relevant sources listed above. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my position is keep for both articles. In addition:

• I suggest we move Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (no hyphen, all words capitalized) to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (hyphen added, sentence case), which appears to be more commonly used and also complies with WP:TITLEFORMAT.
• I oppose adding the word "controversy" to the article's title, because that title would be taken to exclude content about the topic itself, limiting the article solely to content about the academic controversy surrounding the topic. It's a new article that obviously needs improvement. Adding "controversy" would preemptively stifle improvements to the article's coverage of its topic. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with missing out the word "controversy" is that the controversy is the topic of the article. 11 out of the 12 sources currently in the ROGD article discuss the controversy (and the only one that doesn't is the citation to Littman's original paper that sparked the controversy). There is no recognised evidence that such a condition exists, and until that changes, Wikipedia should not have an article on the speculated condition that says anything other than "this is a WP:FRINGE theory." --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and also oppose the article itself being lumped in the same category as the person who coined the term, as their notability for WP is not inherently intertwined. Also suggest that the deletionist user nominating these articles is acting in bad faith, as I wrote a balanced article and include 10 different citations. The vote so far is unanimous aside from the original nomination, and I received a note of article approval from a medical project member. This page will also become a target of activists and censorists (as it appears is already happening), so it's important we uphold the basic values of WP here. Miserlou (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If wanting medical articles such as what ROGD claims to be to abide by WP:MEDRES guidelines and base their claims of the scientific literature, not non scholarly polemics is now called "censorist" then I proudly embrace that label. Not long ago it was called rigorous, it's fair game to cite the corrected plosone page which claims ROGD has "not been clinically validated", or the editor's statement[[4]] when you are writing a scholarly paper. It is less traditional to cite political websites completely unrelated to the science at hand as your only sources. Call me old fashioned but I say we stick with rigor. Don't tar people who want medical rigor activists, instead improve your references so that your article is unimpeachable.Freepsbane (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some rashness to say the nom is acting in bad faith when the Lisa Littman article was the subject of a RfC to decide what to do with the whole ROGD thing several months ago, and the RfC closer suggested the article be sent to AfD. I would've done it myself had I remembered to check what happened with the RfC. As for activism, there's already a bit of weasel wording on the ROGD page, e.g. "Activist publications have called ROGD "anti-trans",[9] "bad science"[10] and "a conservative invention",[1] whereas others have described the phenomenon as "particularly concerning" and called for further study,[1] while also suggesting that activists are "depriving the transgender community of their right to receive accurate information"." -- the first "other" is someone regularly called in for comment on Breitbart, and the second is who else but Lisa Littman herself... Daß Wölf 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begging pardon, but this is my first AfD nomination, ever, and I acted based on the consensus of three separate discussions spanning the breadth of the topic area, all of which you probably didn't see. I don't think that I could be characterized as "deletionist" or acting in bad faith. I do think, personally, that a single study which didn't actually look at any of the people it attempts to diagnose, and which is primarily promoted by opponents of transgender acceptance, doesn't deserve its own page on Wikipedia; if anywhere, it should be in an article about scientific transphobia to match the Scientific Racism article. My personal opinion is not bad faith. Safrolic (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a paper whose conclusion you disagree with "doesn't deserve its own page on Wikipedia", and then nominating both the article for the purported disorder and the article about one of the proponents of that disorder's recognition, might lead people to think that you want to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia's contents, which isn't something the community supports. In practice, we have articles about all sorts of disagreeable academic and pseudoacademic ideas, and we manage to handle most of them well (e.g., explaining that they're wrongheaded, or that they're technically correct but widely misunderstood, or whatever the reliable sources say). I mention this because if it feels like people are attacking your motives – well, we've unfortunately had a lot of difficulties related to this subject area over the years, and they might think that it's rational for them to be worried about whether your main motive is to prevent interested people from learning about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you! My problem with the paper is its methodology more than its conclusion, and that's separate from my problems with the article, which is its fringiness and lack of acceptable sources, which is further separate from the original discussion on the talk page, which I didn't take part in. I'm sure that people will attack my motives, but I wanted to be transparent about my own biases anyways. As a note, PLOS ONE has just (literally just now) issued their post-publication review, and redefined the scope of the initial paper. It's now titled Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. Should I link that in the proposal above, or add it down below? [[5]] [[6]] Safrolic (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge anything useful into an article about the ROGD controversy. There is not a single independent source discussing Littman (including the flood of refs above) that is not principally a report on the ROGD controversy. Just because a subject meets GNG does not mean that we have to have a stand-alone article, as clearly laid out in Wikipedia:Notability #Whether to create standalone pages. If Littman had any claim to notability beyond the ROGD controversy, there might be a point in it, but our article currently reads as (1) Littman went to uni and then med school; (2) Littman became an academic; and then (3) it re-hashes the ROGD article. When the vast bulk of a BLP merely repeats the content of another article, with nothing else beyond some mundane detail that would fit thousands of other non-notable individuals, it's time to consolidate its content into the place where it belongs.
  As for the ROGD article, I am certain that the controversy deserves an article, but I don't believe that the postulated medical condition has anywhere near enough MEDRS sourcing to indicate any mainstream acceptance. The present article should be retitled to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria controversy. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RexxS. XOR'easter (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-ish but this is basically following RexxS's solution:
  • Merge Littman into the current ROGD article since she's a principal figure in it. There is nothing in there that is a BLP violation that needs deletion, and a brief bio sketch on the ROGD page to explain who she is would be fine so retain the contributions by the merge. Even if one believes Littman's article should be deleted, it should it should still end up as a redirct to the ROGD page.
  • Move ROGD to the ROGD controversy as suggested. Tagging it with that title alleviates the MEDRS concerns. --Masem (t) 14:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and MERGE Lisa Littman to it per RexxS and Masem - GretLomborg (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Lisa Littman to the ROGD article, and retitle to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria controversy per RexxS's suggestion. I think at this point there's probably enough lasting RS coverage that this topic satisfies notability criteria one way or the other. However, we need to make clear that what's notable about this isn't the as-of-yet poorly investigated theory, but the controversy surrounding it. I'm generally not a fan of redirecting BLPs to subject's work like this but there's probably a few sentences worth merging and it wouldn't do to lose the RfC on the talk page. Daß Wölf 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone this discussion entirely, because the "under review" paper isn't under review any longer: it was re-published today with some editing (e.g., to remove the word outbreak, which makes being trans sound like an infectious disease) and a lengthier description of the methodology, but with no fundamental changes to the conclusions findings. See https://www.chronicle.com/article/Journal-Issues-Revised-Version/245928 which says "The new version adds context and softens language that drew complaints from transgender advocates, but the primary findings in the paper remain unchanged", and https://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2019/03/19/correcting-the-scientific-record-and-an-apology/ which says "we have reached the conclusion that the study and resultant data reported in the article represent a valid contribution to the scientific literature". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding that polling data from relatives was technically valid does not make an endorsement. The editor of PLOSone[7] and the reviewers found that Littman grossly overeached in using the poling data to claim a clinical discovery. Hence the Discussion section has been almost completely rewritten with emphasis put that there is no clinical data to back up the hypothesis. I promise you as someone who has dabbled in biomedical and has a journal publication or two that having to totally rewrite your discussion and publish a lengthy letter of correction is less than ideal, especially in a lower impact journal like plosone.Freepsbane (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone here claim that there was such an endorsement? IMO even if such an endorsement existed, that wouldn't change my mind: The impetus for this article is a controversial paper that was re-published on the same day that this attempt to delete it was begun. I therefore recommend not trying to rush forward with a decision, as if there were some WP:DEADLINE to get this deleted or re-written Right This Minute. It'd be better to wait a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone’s information it is important we look at what the peer review process found. "The post-publication review identified issues that needed to be addressed to ensure the article meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Given the nature of the issues in this case, the PLOS ONE Editors decided to republish the article, replacing the original version of record with a revised version in which the author has updated the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, to address the concerns raised in the editorial reassessment" If the argument was that the paper was approved and is unchanged, then according to Littman’s updated paper that is not the case.I think it good if we all have the most trustworthy sources possible when making arguments.Freepsbane (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the study or its conclusions were valid or not, the re-publishing changes nothing about the articles or the subjects or the reasons for the AfD. Littman is still a BLP1E who fails WP:PROF. ROGD is still a hypothesis based off one study with no clinical evidence, inherently failing WP:MEDRS. You're arguing for keeping these articles based on the chance that Littman may become notable in the future, or that ROGD as a condition may later be demonstrated in medical literature, and I don't see the point. Also, just to avoid anyone confusing the chronology, I introduced the AfD the night before the review came out. Safrolic (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I think this is a good argument, keeping a medical page on ROGD, or on a non notable academic on the argument that in the future they might stop failing inclusion criteria is begging the question. No reason to break our rules on the chance of a future change.Freepsbane (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying here that the findings are not the conclusions. The primary findings in the paper were what the parents surveyed said. That didn't change. The conclusions were what the author drew from her findings. Those have changed significantly and I posted the original and revised conclusions at the ROGD talk page. Safrolic (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a textbook example of WP:BIO1E: Asides from a single event that received some coverage from socially conservative sources (which has since petered down) there is very little else that can be found on Littman. If you check her publications, she hasn't published on a journal with an impact factor over 4. She is an nontenured assistant professor and there is nothing else she is notable for. If we ignore this single event and focus on general notability will we be giving every nondiscrepit Assistant Professor a Wiki page, I know quite a few with Nature and Science publications, one of them was even invited to some conference with the Gates Foundation. It's very hard to argue that other professors with blockbuster papers shouldn't get their own page when they far outstrip Littman by all Criteria.Freepsbane (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally irrelevant where she published. If she's covered by reliable sources that discuss her — it doesn't matter that the impact factor for studies is low. That's just a bait and switch — focus on the general notability guidelines... Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one playing bait and switch isn't me,Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says to weigh the impact of where they publish and how cited and well known they are in their field. The reliable sources they want are *academically* cited papers. Being mentioned by an obscure national review columnist isn't academic notability being mentioned in Nature Reviews is. As for ROGD the medical page WP:MEDRES clearly states that you need consensus, ideally reviews and barring that clinical studies of some kind. Right now, the rewritten PLOS paper says there is zero clinical data to back the existence of ROGD. Should we ignore our usual guidelines, why?Freepsbane (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ROGD page, it should clearly be deleted per undue weight: as the corrected PLOSone paper notes, there is no clinical evidence to support the putative condition, only indirect anecdotes. If we gave every hypothesis low impact open journals published the same weight reviews in high impact journals get and gave them their own page, then you can imagine just how much speculation only pages we would get. ROGD is on extra thin ice since it has the black mark of the journal forcing a rewrite of the entire discussion to one that hedges on if the hypothesis even exists.Freepsbane (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete each article per nom; Littman is WP:BLP1E and non-notable, as outlined by others above, and RGOD is unsupportable to WP:MEDRS standards; if the latter article is kept, moving to a title with "...controversy" in the name might help, but because "all biomedical information [...] in any Wikipedia article" needs to meet MEDRS, it'd still be hard to say much about it beyond that it's unsupported. (Btw, regarding "it wouldn't do to lose the RfC on the talk page", it's always seemed a bit odd to me that WP deletes talk pages in cases like this; Wiktionary, for example, doesn't.) -sche (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that part of MEDRS were 100% upheld we'd not have any articles on, say, anti-vaxxers, which would be silly. MEDRS is important if anything of biomedical nature is said in a factual, WP voice. As long as we say in the article labeled "controversy" that "Proponents of this theory suggest..." and the actual accountable, disproving MEDRS sources included after the fact, that's encyclopedic. MEDRS cannot be used as a hammer to rid topics that aren't based on good science when there are other reasons to keep the topic. --Masem (t) 03:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fallacy, there is no shortage of reviews and credible medical sources and organizations that cover antivax ideology and refute their claims. Whatsmore, if we followed your suggestion we would have to take a WP:BALANCE fallacy where we give both sides equal weight although the backing of sources is grossly unequal. PLOS says there is no clinical evidence to back this hypothetical condition. It shouldn't be that hard to take them at their word. MEDRES works just fine for refuting antivax as it's really easy to say find an AAP statment and review that meets MEDRES and debunks antivax claims. What is hard to find is clinical studies backing the antivax stance, ergo why we don't represent them equally.Freepsbane (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never said there would need to be a need to create a false balance to cover a controversial, non-MEDRS report. If the focus of the RGOD article is flipped to be about the controversy rather than the "condition", then we would briefly mention that the PLOS paper claims RGOS existed and defined as such, and then proceeded to move into the criticism of the paper, including any counterstudies that are from MEDRS, any undermining of the scientific approach used, etc., As long as throughout that article it is clear that RGOS is only a claim made by this paper and nowhere close to accepted medical fact, then it doesn't matter if there are or aren't MEDRS sources to refute it. The controversy around RGOD clearly appears notable, with most speaking against the likelihood of RGOD being legit, but it makes no sense to not have an article just because there doesn't exist an MEDRS to counter. We just need to make the approach and tone clear that WP is no way endorsing RGOD, and instead only documenting the controversy around it. --Masem (t) 13:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccination redirects to Vaccination hesitancy, an article about the phenomenon of people who, despite the consensus of the many MEDRS-compliant studies and papers mentioned in the sources, still believe they're dangerous. It's an article more similar to Scientific racism or Climate change denial than neutrally presenting a medical phenomenon in its own right. What might be more applicable is MMR vaccine and autism. It's complete dissection of the flaws in the original research, using MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources. I'd be okay in principle with an ROGD controversy article in this style, personally; the problem is that there aren't MEDRS sources available, because nobody's bothered to do any further research, because the original study was so heavily discredited already. Safrolic (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep – This is pointless. She's thoroughly disliked, yet there are sufficient sources for notability. Everyone voting delete here needs to take a good hard think about what they're doing — and then reconsider how they best can improve the article instead of violating WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going by WP:BLP1E if someone is notable for a single event then it doesn't count. And as far as academic notability goes, almost every junior faculty member, along with a good chunk of postdocs I've met outstrips. If she gets an article, why don't those guys with their many seminal Nature papers get one too?Freepsbane (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm serious, if we exclude the WP:BLP1E, I want to know why if a junior academic who publishes in sub impact factor 3 journals gets an article, then all the tenure track with Nature papers which have been very significant to recent biomedical advances shouldn't get their own articles as well. Certainly if we can create a medical page for ROGD when PLOS itself acknowledges that there is no clinical data to confirm the condition, then every abstract concept that is backed by Nature or some equally prestigious journal should get its own article.Freepsbane (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @CFCF: I voted delete and I resent being told I didn't think about what I was doing. How about you consider this: given the sources available, we could write a very sketchy bio with a massive emphasis on the controversy; or we could write a weasel-worded article about a fringe theory concerning a condition that has very little evidence for its existence (with a massive emphasis on the controversy); or we could write a decent article about the controversy that contained the background of the individual concerned and the paper at the root of the controversy. I really did think about it, and I'm absolutely sure which of those is the best choice. What's your view on that? --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rexxs — Then we simply merge it to the theory, without needing to have a discussion about deletion. I agree your proposal makes sense, but this seems to be the wrong place to talk about it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How could you merge it to the hypothesis when it's abundantly clear that a page on medical theory would meet none of the WP:MEDRES criteria. Even the one PLOSone paper on the subject, after correction, says there is zero clinical evidence to support the hypothesis. There is enough nonschollarly sources for maybe a subsection in PLOSone's page, but according to even Littman's revised paper, we lack any scholarly sources to make a page on medical theory.Freepsbane (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just want to know why my friends, mentors and their Nature/Cell/Science articles shouldn't also get their own pages. If we can give ROGD a page despite the total and complete lack of any clinical data to validate it's existence, (according to plosone no less!), then I find it very hard to see why each and everyone of their very highly cited papers -Which are making a big impact in science- shouldn't be getting their own pages as well.Freepsbane (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they have sufficient sources about them, then why shouldn't they have articles? I don't care where she published, if she's controversial enough to have articles written about her — which is what matters of Wikipedia — she's notable. It's totally uninteresting that her research is crap. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again,Criteria is pretty clear that notability should be based of the academic's scholarly work and how cited it is. If she were notable academically I'm sure you could point me to a Nature Review on her work. Freepsbane (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, @CFCF: was off the mark in guessing that my stance is based off animus. If it were I would be voting to keep her biography as PLOS one of all places forcing you to discard and completely rewrite your original discussion and conclusion and publicly criticizing it is no feather in one's cap. Deleting would probably be better for the career of the academic instead of forever being known for a high profile rejection of your conclusion and forced rewrite. The ROGD page I admit I am not impressed by but there we have a medical styled page covering what it claims to be a syndrome without providing so much as a single clinical study as evidence. Mind you I would say the same if we gave other fringe medicine topics the same undue weight. If sound evidence were provided I wouldn't be able to criticize no matter whatever purported biases I might have.Freepsbane (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As weird as it sounds, it seems her work meets notability yet she doesn’t. Before I even read some of these (ridiculous) comments, I surmised this was a BLP1E. Trillfendi (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ROGD as a medical condition completely lacks any clinical data, (even according to plosone) so that is debatable. That said, the controversy, as a popular culture, nonmedical topic, might possibly be notable.Freepsbane (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One option could be to merge the ROGD publishing controversy with PLOS One while according to the revised paper itself there is no clinical data to support the hypothesis and so a page discussing it would quickly run afoul of WP:MEDRES and WP:Undue guidelines the nonscientific controversy aspect would fit perfectly into PLOS One's section on controversies. Especially now that the review and total rewrite of discussion/conclusion along with editor statement are completed.Freepsbane (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really good idea. It looks comparable to the two instances there already, and provides a redirect-friendly landing spot for people searching for it. Safrolic (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful with that, at least as I am reading; PLOS has its own problems, but this does not seem to be something directly that PLOS did (outside of being an easy-to-publish platform that made it easy for this work to get this far). PLOS did require the rewrite, but again, that's a response and not so much their direct involvement. It's effectively shooting the messenger, which WP should not do. (But that's based on what's in the article - if there is clearly more involvement from PLOS than given, that's different) --Masem (t) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be shooting anything and you highlighted exactly why it's relevant to PLOS. It is easy to publish there so many of their papers end up undergoing post publication review. The consensus among their reviewers was that they let a paper with significant discussion and conclusion flaws through, and so they had those sections rewritten. Freepsbane (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Following Freepsbane's suggestion, I've gone ahead and BOLDly created a new section with a focus on the initial issue, the review, and the final results. It can be found at PLOS_One#Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy. If people like it, we can set up both redirects to that section; comparably, CreatorGate redirects to the section above. Justification for sources where potentially necessary will be found on the PLOS One talk page. Note to others who may want to edit it: I've tried to keep the overall length comparable to the the other two subsections. Let's make sure we don't use PLOS One as a WP:Coatrack. Safrolic (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like how your cites are nearly all from the journal, the editor and the reviewers. Very good idea to cite scholarly sources when possible since lay cites often summarize poorly. I’m trying to save the rogd page by improving it’s sources to make them medres compliant but I fear that is impossible: a single National Review writer with no expert qualifications makes nearly all the medical claims in the article. There are no peer reviewed sources to back the existence of the condition save for a PLOS article that instead is skeptical sans says there is no clinical evidence. I think merging ROGD with PLOS is our best bet.Freepsbane (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As noted, the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article currently exists. It does not yet have its own AfD page. Instead, the AfD tag for the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria page currently points to this one. To me, this is not ideal since editors will have different reasons for why the Lisa Littman article should not exist and why the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article should not exist. Even if the Lisa Littman article is deleted, the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria article might still exist because there is no WP:Consensus here to delete it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled them together because they're both discussing substantially the same thing and they were both previously discussed together in the same RfC on the Talk:Lisa Littman page. I thought having two separate discussions with the same people might be more confusing. Is that alright? Safrolic (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: I’ve been trying to find scholarly sources for the ROGD page but that seems impossible, especially for finding ones that attest to its existence. I don’t believe it will be possible to keep rogd as a medical page. However it’s plently likely that even if Littman didn’t meet academic notability guidelines she might meet some other i’m not aware of. Rogd needs its own page for its own hearing.Freepsbane (talk) 22:24, 21 March 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.