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 to Caitlyn Jenner. While I would have preferred to have seen at least a nod to the relevant notability criterion for events, I do find a rough consensus here for a merge back to Caitlyn Jenner. Detailed discussions of weight, as always, are best addressed in discussions at the article talk page rather than within a deletion process. j⚛e decker^talk 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of Caitlyn Jenner[edit]

Transition of Caitlyn Jenner (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)

An article that came out of Caitlyn Jenner and shouldn't have happened. Was created without consensus (see Jenner article talk page for evidence). Some responsible for creating the article now feel the article title needs to be changed because it isn't in line with their understanding of "transition" (read: agenda)Transition article talk page discussion is here. Apparently to some, "transition" in reference to transgender issues, refers to sex reassignment surgery. According to reliable sources, Jenner has no immediate plans for sex reassignment surgery, therefore, the article is inappropriate and should not have been created. Keeping it under that premise violates WP:CRYSTAL. From what I can gather, the new article was created because editors at the original Jenner article wouldn't agree to paring down the section regarding her transition. One of the editors proposing creation of the article stated, "I suggest WP:BOLD: create it and see how it flies.". This seems like an badly thought-out, knee-jerk reaction and a poor reason to create an article (see comment here). I can't advocate strongly enough for DELETE and move content back to the original article. At that time, discussion toward consensus regarding the content dispute will have to be done, even if it takes a while. This article seems to have been created on a whim -- which has now created disruption through more work rather than going forward with discussion at the original article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Caitlyn Jenner. Not for any of the reasons stated by the nominator, which are flawed and factually incorrect (gender transition refers to far more than just SRS), but per WP:SIZESPLIT: an article that has less than 40KB of readable prose does not warrant a split based on its length. Prior to the split, the main Jenner article only had 19KB of readable prose. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Caitlyn Jenner; not enough content to warrant a separate article Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Caitlyn Jenner, sans recentism tag: The nominator quoted me above, and I stand by my comments. The advantage of this split, regardless of article length, is that it allows Jenner's post-transition life, the subject of much press coverage, to be expanded here without it becoming disproportionate in size to the rest of her bio in the main article. But either option works for me. Barte (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a separate and notable event in Jenner's life. The recentism tag is preventing it being developed properly on the main page. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section can develop as much as editors want it to while the recentism tag is there. It's just there to let other editors know that it's disproportionately larger than other sections of the article. It's common for that tag to appear on articles whose subjects have recently been featured in the news. The goal is for it to be fixed at a later time. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a section is tagged as disproportionately large, then editors will be less inclined to expand it further. If there's a long-term goal, as you say, to fix it later, that goal is not stated or implicit. It's certainly not obvious to me. Barte (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The place for the consideration of significant events in the life of people sufficiently notable for a biographical article is, in general, in that biographical article. There's no WP:SIZESPLIT reason to spall this off, and quite a few reasons, some of which have arguable BLP connotations, not to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The transition is notable enough to merit its own article. While currently there is no section for public reactions to the transition, there should be such a section, and such a section would not be appropriate in Caitlyn Jenner's bio article. The nominator's argument that until Jenner has sex reassignment surgery the article constitutes WP:CRYSTAL is beyond absurd. The transition has occurred regardless if the surgery took place. How hot is the sun? (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: My statement above, "Apparently to some, "transition" in reference to transgender issues, refers to sex reassignment surgery" is based on the article talk page discussion wherein it was said that "transition" means surgical sex reassignment surgery. My feeling was that based on that belief, if there is no indication that Jenner is having such surgery in the immediate future, creating of an article regarding such a transition is premature and based on WP:CRYSTAL. So no, it's not absurd since that's pretty much what the article creators were doing by creating an article that's supposed to be about a surgery that hasn't been (according to sources) planned or is even forthcoming (again, according to sources and Jenner's own very recent statements). It has always been my understanding that transgender transition meant just what you say it means, however, those who created and were proponents of the new article say differently. The recent suggestion at the talk page speaks to same; now they want to change the article title to fit what is starting to look like an agenda. Bottom line: the article was poorly planned, not created as a result of consensus, and doesn't do anything different than what the Caitlyn Jenner article already did and still can do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The raison d'etre for the split was over WP:RECENTISM and proportionality. Reasonable people have respectfully disagreed on the best approach to address those concerns. But I wonder whether your argument here is missplaced. The original section head in Caitlyn Jenner was (and still is) entitled "Gender transition". If the two articles were merged, wouldn't you have the same complaint? Barte (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barte. Is everyone's problem about it being called "Gender transition" or it having its' own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me, personally and overwhelmingly, it's about the standalone article. It never should have happened. The discussion at the article talk page made that even more clear when it was obvious the article's proponents can't agree on what "transition" means and then wanting to change the name of the article to fit an agenda. All of that combined prompted me to create this AfD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge A 'transition' is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, not in this universe at least. It should be in the main article. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Millions of people change genders but we don't have an article on the transition so I don't see why on earth we should have one now. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure whether the number is really in the millions, but that's not relevant. The fact is that only Caitlyn had a 20/20 interview about the transition followed by a reality tv show. The transition is notable. While current content in the article may not be sufficiently long to warrant its own article, there is no doubt that Caitlyn's transition is more notable than the transitions of all the other people on this list combined. How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Well I'm obviously not sure on how many change but I'd imagine worldwide it's rather alot But anyway I disagree I don't believe it is notable as many people who go through this have interviews here & there, Meh we'll agree to disagree I think . –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably is in the millions I agree with the points of how it is easily the most notable transition and should keep its own article. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable? Maybe as of right now, but there have been several other notable "transitions" (see Christine Jorgensen and Renée Richards two very well known examples that long pre-date Jenner's experience). As of yet, however, nothing has been provided in regard to a reliable reference that supports your claim it is the most notable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide some for references then. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I see no reason to create separate article about this. Merge with main article of person - Caitlyn Jenner. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce to single paragraph and merge back to Caitlyn Jenner per WP:SIZESPLIT. —Sladen (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, with Caitlyn Jenner without substantial reduction in coverage (though the details of weight should be worked out on the parent article talk page). Also, trout the nominator for not simply starting a merge discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first trout. I'll take it! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's trout mean? Iady391 | Talk to me here 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For our esteemed nominator, it means:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Barte (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I added a merge discussion tag on the main page.

Reverted; the nom was broken and we don't want a parallel discussion to the one here. VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per nom. That something generates lots of popular coverage doesn't make it encyclopedically notable, and it's not so inherently notable that it requires a separate article. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into the Jenner article. Agree with comment immediately above, except that I think merger is more warranted given the extent of coverage in reliable sources. Arguably the most notable sex change in recent times. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Chase and my original reasoning for not splitting on the main article's talk page. Sock (tock talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the main bio article per the content size. This is seriously a faulty nomination and the reasons given here are atrocious. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main article, Caitlyn Jenner, fairly covers this material already, or at least it used to and still should. The rest should be covered in I am Cait, a docuseries devoted to her transition. Which is currently airing and likely generating much of the media coverage. I'm at a loss as to what other notable aspects wouldn't be in those two articles. Missruption (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Missruption: removing the split article and adding the material back at the parent article sounds like a !vote for a merge, not deletion. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "split" thus removing all the well-crafted material from the main article never should have happened. Call it what you will but this extra article should be deleted. The information restored where it was, and the new less important details sent to the I am Cait article. Missruption (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the main bio article. There is no need for a separate article. The subject matter can easily be handled there. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't see why this needs to be a separate article — between her main WP:BLP and the article about the television series, there's nothing noteworthy to say about this as a thing in its own right that couldn't be handled just fine in those two articles instead. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2015 (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.