Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Discrimination. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Discrimination|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Discrimination. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Shortcut

Discrimination

[edit]

List of symbols designated by the ADL as hate symbols

[edit]
List of symbols designated by the ADL as hate symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, concerning WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDB issues. Absolutiva 01:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the name of the database is "Hate on Display" (which the article, for some reason, does not mention). Refocusing on the database itself, which does seem to be notable from a search for both its inclusions and criticism, and just keeping the list at the bottom would fix the problem IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For a more proper vote, I would prefer to keep but refocus on the database generally, which is notable and doesn't have the database issues. I would also not object to this being deleted. Strongly oppose suggestion of a general "list of hate symbols" page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD-E and rename to "list of hate symbols" (outside of scope of AfD). The inclusion criterion for the list is currently just having been designated as such by the ADL, but we could easily expand the scope to include other symbols designed as hate symbols by other organizations.
Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has another list of hate symbols [1]. Katzrockso (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this suggestion very strongly. The article being flat out deleted would be preferable. We cannot in wikivoice call something a "hate symbol", it is purely opinion, for the same reason we do not have a list of hate groups and we cannot say "Hitler is evil" in wikivoice, but that he is described that way. It is against MOS:LABEL, we do not present something that is opinion as fact, but "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". The list you mention is not of hate symbols, it is of "global extremist symbols" as well, which includes many non-hate groups that are otherwise extremist. Combining those is synth and original research. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Syam (activist)

[edit]
Amal Syam (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP sourced to media interviews and social media posts. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for coverage outside what is cited in the article? Found this after thirty seconds: 'I'm living in Gaza as it's being bombed - we've forgotten the meaning of safety'. Tiamut (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it’s another media interview, not in-depth independent coverage. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amal is contributing to her socitey and community in a meaningful way. Maisa Khudair (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why investing in women’s organizations is critical during crisis: Five stories of resilience – (Gaza: Amal Syam, General Manager of Women’s Affairs Center) Tiamut (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is quoted at length in this book published in 2013. Tiamut (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid that doesn’t load for me so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for her name inside the book from this link. Its a page about a heading with her name in her position as director of the Woman's Affairs Center, discussing the challenges facing women in Palestine under patriarchy. Tiamut (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her struggle as a human rights defender (among others) is discussed in this article in The Guardian, where she is also quoted. Tiamut (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A paper she authored and her experience is included in this report on women-led organizations. Tiamut (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a passing mention of her in the report text, sourced to a paper she authored. In other words the source is only used in the report to verify her own claims about herself. Mccapra (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mccapra and thanks for your comments. While coverage may currently rely on media interviews and social media posts, it’s worth noting that Amal has made significant contributions to her society and community. Additional reliable sources can certainly be found to further enrich and support the article content instead of deleting it. Maisa Khudair (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe notability is established by the sources cited above which can easily be added to the article. Tiamut (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The figure is notable enough refering to some of cited resources and the ones Tiamut listed above. Maisa Khudair (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are multiple, reliable, secondary sources discussing her and her experiences and work as director of a women's NGO. She won an award for this work. Her papers on this work are cited by other publications. Not seeing where the problem is. Tiamut (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that while you say the sources are discussing her and her experiences and work as director of a women's NGO, they instead seem to be WP:INTERVIEWS where they take a quote from her about her experiences. These experiences are valuable, but is there a specific notability standard you see her meeting? Generally I would expect this to be WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing where the provided sources do show WP:SIGCOV. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true most of the coverage is related to her as director of the Women's Affairs Center, though also as a eyewitness to the effects of the Israeli aggression on Gaza. The fact that she won an award for that work is significant in my opinion (as is continuing that work under extremely adverse circumstances, which is what the secondary sources I provided discuss). I guess we just have different ideas about where the threshold for notability lies. Tiamut (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, working under such circumstances is not easy at all. Maisa Khudair (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having an easy or a hard job, is not notable here. We need articles that talk about her, not interviews, not "she does good work". Its the sourcing we're missing that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Interviews featuring the individual count as primary sources, not secondary. There are still concerns regarding a lack of WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. Relisting to allow for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources 10 and 16 are listed as marginal by Cite Highlighter, so not much help. I see no other sources in my search. Being quote in media is fine, but that doesn't show notability for our purposes. Sourcing is largely quotes by this person, or primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand the assertion that interviews with her are primary sources. She is being interviewed by reliable secondary sources, not self-publishing that material. Tiamut (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or primary sourcing, most aren't articles about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are a key mechanism for finding information on a (modern) person. The journalist then has a choice of writing the article in the format of an interview with quotations, or in the third person with paraphrase. It makes no sense at all to discount the first format as contributing to notability but to accept the second format. The difference is only that the journalist decided to write it differently. Zerotalk 05:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the distinction is fundamental. WP:SECONDARY says A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. For the biography of a living person this is what we are looking for - in depth, critical or evaluative discussion in the sources about the subject /their work/their views, not “here are a number of instances where this person has been interviewed.” To take myself as an example, in my day job I have been interviewed on BBC News and am quoted in dozens of reliable, independent news pieces every year e.g. The Times or The Evening Standard, but that does not make me notable for Wikipedia purposes. Such coverage is normal for anyone doing my kind of job and none of it is in-depth discussion about me. It is just me offering commentary on current events or the activities/views of the organisation I work for. If someone tries to assemble a Wikipedia article about me from this material it should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews in The Mirror and The Guardian are not simply "part of her job", and I feel it quite insensitive to compare your job duties to what she is being interviewed for in both. May you never have to live through what she has. In any case, I added some of the info in both in these edits. Think pretending that working in such extraordinarily difficult circumstances during a genocide on women's human rights issues is not somehow notable is strange, particularly given reliable sources do find it notable and devoted several paragraphs to her in particular.Tiamut (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, I agree that merely being interviewed does not necessarily bestow notability. For example, eye-witnesses to events are frequently interviewed about those events without that making the eye-witnesses themselves personally notable. However, when the interview is about the person being interviewed that's quite a different matter. The resulting article has the same value for notability as if it was written in the third person. Also, there is no policy that forbids use of primary sources, so the primary/secondary issue here is rather irrelevant. Zerotalk 04:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Part of the above discussion confuses me, which of the references are considered 'just' interviews? The Mirror article refers to an interview of Syam, but uses that to drive its "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" on her, becoming a full secondary write-up. From a quick pass on the list of citations, I see multiple WP:RS providing secondary coverage: This Mirror article, this Watan News article, this UN article, etc. Out of the 13 additional references, there is probably more depth (I'm having trouble navigating some of the Arabic articles) and at least enough to account for WP:BARE notability. CaptainAngus (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States

[edit]
Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The provided reason for deletion is WP:SYNTH, and WP:BADFORK of Transgender rights in the United States.

Based on my WP:BEFORE analysis:

  • The sourcing is for a tangential topic and is threaded in a WP:OR fashion to this article, like the "Ban on gender affirming care for youth" paragraph, which is trying to make a WP:OR argument that this ban leads to a "prevention from voting".
  • I believe many editors would be of the opinion that sourcing fails WP:INDEPENDENT as advocacy sources (example: [13]).

Finally, I believe the naming of this article lends undue weight towards a particular hypothesis or controversy and would be better contextualized in Transgender rights in the United States. It is at the very least a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and at most a WP:POVFORK. Historyexpert2 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to say there's an advocacy here issue, but I definitely think redundancy is an issue. As the nominator says, this article attempts to take other trans rights issues and synthesise them into a point about disenfranchisement in order to justify its existence; when any content about disenfranchisement would just be better served as a section of the transgender rights article. At some points it veers into straight up speculation as with poll workers are unlikely to have training on how to handle transgender people, and may erroneously suspect voter fraud. a claim which goes entirely unsourced
Hence merge to Transgender rights in the United States Athanelar (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the nominator's justification. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not about transgender rights in general but about the specific issue of not being able to vote. I agree that parts of the article read as tangential, like the section on "Ban on gender-affirming care for youth", which I went ahead and deleted as I agree this is speculative. The topic itself is clearly notable though. There are multiple reliable independent sources discussing the topic, e.g. [14], [15]. Lijil (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my later comments - article is now heavily revised. Lijil (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lots of SYNTH here; I suppose it's not a difficult conclusion to draw from having invalid identification, but none of the sources discuss it as a concept. Other than Human Rights Watch, articles are about poverty, violence and other things, not directly about disenfranchisement. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Oaktree b - would you mind taking a new look at the article? I have heavily revised it and it now has sources that do directly discuss the topic itself. Lijil (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a giant mess of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:COAT. It is highly speculative, saying things like might be deliberately targeted, may find it difficult, might be disenfranchised, etc. It goes off into irrelevant tangents: the case In re Anonymous v. Weiner, for example, seems to have nothing to do with voting. It engages in leaps of logic: because transgender people are more likely to be in poverty, this somehow equates to "transgender disenfranchisement" because poor people find it harder to access transportation, even though this has nothing to do with bureaucratic, institutional and social barriers as defined in the lede. It violates WP:NOTGUIDE by randomly mentioning how voters can use IDs like utility bills. Overall, this is a WP:NOPAGE failure even if the concept is discussed in a handful of sources, and there is very little to salvage here for a merge. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please look at the current page and reconsider your vote as I think your issues have been addressed - I made heavy revisions, added better sources, removed WP:SYNTH and sections that violated WP:NOTGUIDE. Lijil (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work improving this article. The problem is that even the sources which talk about "transgender disenfranchisement" do so in speculative and uncertain terms. I agree with the nominator that there are significant POV concerns: the article currently treats "transgender disenfranchisement" as a given, which does not reflect what the sources actually say. Below are quotes demonstrating this uncertainty (emphasis mine):

Vice:

  • Thousands of transgender voters may have a hard time casting a ballot in next month’s elections
  • tens of thousands of trans people–if not more–who are eligible to vote may struggle to do so

The Conversation:

  • such laws could disenfranchise up to 78,000 transgender people
  • transgender voting rights may be undermined ahead of the 2018 midterms
  • Georgia alone could disenfranchise about 20,000 transgender voters

Skinner-Thompson (2025):

  • voter identification laws, which may prevent transgender people from voting
  • a person living in a jurisdiction with a strict voter identification law that is not able to obtain an ID with an accurate gender marker because of legal, economic, or medical barriers may be deterred or forbidden from voting.

Vox:

  • more serious charges that potentially put a trans person’s right to vote at risk
  • more interactions people have with police can potentially lead to harsher charges, which can potentially lead to disenfranchisement
  • potentially opening up trans people to discrimination at the polls on Election Day

Williams Institute (2018):

  • Transgender citizens with identification documents that do not match their gender may also encounter obstacles to voting
  • strict photo ID laws may create substantial barriers to voting and possible disenfranchisement for over 78,000 transgender people
  • There is no way to predict precisely how election officials and poll workers will treat transgender voters at the polls if they present identification that does not accurately reflect their gender

NBC:

  • Strict ID laws could disenfranchise 78,000 transgender voters, report says
  • strict voter ID laws could deny tens of thousands of eligible trans voters
The article also suffers from confusing "voter suppression" (efforts to make it harder for someone to vote) and "disenfranchisement" (preventing someone from casting a vote). In fact, the little evidence we have suggests that "transgender disenfranchisement"—i.e., people legally being blocked from voting—is not a significant phenomenon.
  • From Vice [16]: Despite voting barriers, a 2015 National Center for Transgender Equality study suggest trans people are more likely to participate politically than their cis counterparts. More than half (54 percent) of the trans respondents who are U.S. citizens and of voting age said they had voted in 2014, compared to 42 percent of people in the general U.S. population who said they voted.
  • And from the Conversation [17]: Finally, some people – less than 1 percent of non-voters who were registered – actually reported that they were not allowed to vote, because of their gender identity.
Thus the only evidence we have of "transgender disenfranchisement" happening is the responses of less than 1 percent of people in a self-reported survey. Even the articles which give specific examples of transgender people facing difficulties at the polls ([18] [19] [20]) all report that they were ultimately able to vote.
I see very little value in an article which needs to be couched in a bunch of "maybe"s and "could be"s. WP:CRYSTAL says: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. What little is worth saving here can be moved to articles like Transgender rights in the United States, as the nominator suggests. Astaire (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've heavily revised the first section of the article and am now quite sure it fulfills WP:GNG. There are still sections that may belong in other articles, I could happily delete these. But please discuss the article as it is now, not the original. Here are my WP:THREE main sources: 1) The UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute publishes a report specifically on the impact of voter ID laws on transgender voters before every election (e.g. 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024) and several of these are reported in mainstream media including VICE, The Conversation, NBC etc. 2) This scholarly article specifically on the topic: Scott Skinner-Thompson, "Transgender Disenfranchisement", 102 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1997 (2025). It was published just this year and is already cited 8 times [21]. 3) Long article in Vox: The long history of trans voters’ disenfranchisement, explained Lijil (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The main issue is not that it does not pass WP:GNG (cross-categorizations very frequently will pass WP:GNG but will not have a standalone article). Rather, there are worries it does not pass WP:POVTITLE, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:POVFORK compared to the more encyclopedic main article Transgender rights in the United States. It would exist as a fork with much weaker attributed primary or niche secondary sourcing pieced together. And the fundamentally opinionated title leads to an article resting upon primary sources which mix opinion and statistics, and require Wikipedia editors to engage in WP:OR to filter out exaggerations.
    So the policy in question here is really WP:NOT. Would we have an article named "History of the transgender genocide in United States" even though we can find dozens opinion pieces from lifestyle magazines and college lecturers talking about it? Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assess the actual sources (I posted WP:THREE earlier) instead of claiming there would only be “weaker attributed primary or niche secondary sourcing pieced together”. Lijil (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an analysis of the sources supporting concerns about WP:SYNTH and general weakness of the sourcing for a standalone article on this topic.
    • Talk about laws that "could disenfranchise" transgender voters, which is quite distinct from an article claiming a historical overview of "transgender disenfranchisement in the US". So, the idea that there is a historical "US transgender disenfranchisement" is not supported by this source. Manufacturing a whole "Transgender disenfranchisement in the US" article would be WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL.
    As this is just a reply to your request, I would like to remind that I believe WP:POVTITLE to be the underlying policy issue with this standalone topic, from which WP:SYNTH and WP:OR stems. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for replying, @Historyexpert2. I think you have misunderstood what an "independent source" is, and what "a primary source" is. I quote from WP:Independent sources: Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic. This is exactly parallel to Professor Scott Skinner-Thompson's article that is referenced here. The article is also not a primary source. Primary sources are first-hand accounts, so an example of a primary source for Transgender disenfranchisement might be an opinion piece written by a transgender person who was turned away from the polls because their ID was rejected as it marked them as male but they look like a woman. A peer-reviewed scholarly article debating the legal questions related to transgender disenfranchisement is not a primary source. If Professor Skinner-Thompson was inventing the term "transgender disenfranchisement" in this article it might be seen as a primary source, per WP:PRIMARY: An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. But he is not inventing the term, the article analyzes a range of sources that use an already established term. Lijil (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are definitely primary in the sense of WP:RSOPINION, which is what was meant originally by this article "existing as a fork with much weaker attributed primary or niche secondary sourcing pieced together" if built upon this WP:CRYSTAL and WP:POVTITLE topic.
    The author, whose (paid) profession is LGBT law advocate, *does* gain personal benefit from writing advocacy pieces on this topic, so I definitely think it can be considered a weaker source just by WP:INDEPENDENT. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSOPINION refers to opinion pieces, not peer-reviewed scholarship. And the author's paid profession is not "LGBT law advocate", it is full professor of law specializing in constitutional law, civil rights, and privacy law, with a particular focus on LGBTQ+ and HIV issues. As for your claim of WP:POVTITLE, if you read a little further down you'll see WP:POVNAME: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title. There is WP:SIGCOV about "transgender disenfranchisement" that references this occurring in the United States, so I'd say the title follows Wikipedia policy. Is your point is that there is not currently full disenfranchisement of trans people in the US, and therefore the title is misleading? The way disenfranchisement is used in the sources includes making it harder to vote and participate in public life, not just the outright banning of voting. But perhaps this needs to be made clearer in the article? Lijil (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Disfranchisement#United_States: As an WP:ATD. Alternative destination for a merge is Transgender rights in the United States. There is obviously sourced content in this article and we should maintain as much of it as possible. TarnishedPathtalk 08:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:APPNOTE I left notifications on Talk:Transgender rights in the United States and Talk:Disfranchisement, and on User talk:-sche as they are the editor with the most edits by count. Lijil (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, a few sources that address this, but not enough to prove notability, the rest is synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified WikiProject LGBTQ+ Studies about this discussion. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 16:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with WP:BADFORK since Transgender rights in the United States has no section on disenfranchisement (ID stuff like passports, sure, but not disenfranchisement). Plus that article is already tagged for being too long, so adding it there would just bog that article down even further. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a proposed merge target is too large isn't a good reason to keep a bad article that shouldn't exist on its own. WP:BHTT. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that it otherwise shouldn't exist. As Lijil pointed out, it has significant secondary coverage. The only major issue seems to be that the sources use a lot of hedging language like "may" and "could." Also, I didn't see what it looked like at the time of your proposed deletion, but it doesn't seem very WP:SYNTH now. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a valid WP:SPINOFF of that topic because it meets WP:GNG. It is not a WP:FORK at all, because there is no mention of disenfranchisement at all in Transgender rights in the United States. I don't think the fact that scholars warned that certain laws had the potential to cause further disenfranchisement discounts the fact that this is a real term and phenomenon that has been widely covered for at least a decade.
  • Vox (2020) [22]
  • Washington University Law Review (2025) [23]
  • University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change (2021) [24]
  • University of Illinois Chicago Law Review (2022) [25]
  • Michigan Law Review (2024) [26]
  • Minority Voting in the United States (2015) [27]
  • Navigating Trans and Complex Gender Identities (2019) [28]
  • Them (2020) [29]
Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the point about "hedging" language. I think that is WP:CHERRYPICKING. I didn't look at all the sources listed, but Vox both discusses the history of trans disenfranchisement and the potential for more because of new laws. Per Beyond Kings and Queens: Gender and Politics in the 2019 Black Census from Black Futures Lab: [30] While the Black Census did not ask respondents about the nature of their felony conviction, the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey from the National Center for Transgender Equality finds that a lack of economic options drives 28 percent of Black transgender respondents to participate in the underground economy for income, including in sex work, drug sales, and other criminalized employment. Black transgender women in particular experience a higher likelihood of participating in sex work for income and of coming into contact with the criminal justice system as a result—a potential reason for higher felony disenfranchisement rates among transgender women.
Hence, this is clearly described as an actual problem that is being studied, not a potential issue. It's obviously not WP:SYNTH. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sources fail the use-mention distinction. Their topic is "transgender voting" and not "transgender disenfranchisement". So those sources would be better fit in an article called transgender voting (see WP:POVTITLE concerns). Historyexpert2 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid rebuttal. The sources listed are not only about voter disenfranchisement. See also the quote above.
  • As sympathy for transgender issues has become more mainstream, Hollywood tends to continually pat itself on the back for showcase transgender narratives. Transgender portrayal in The Crying Game, The Danish Girl, Boys Don’t Cry, and Dallas Buyers Club have all resulted in Oscar nominations and wins for cisgender actors, as well as Emmy wins for cisgender actors or creators for TV shows like Transparent and Orange is the New Black. Yet, with rare exceptions, these award-winning projects do not include actual transgender involvement whether on-screen, creatively, educationally, or financially. In essence, cisgender actors and other creatives further their own careers on the back of transgender disenfranchisement.
At any rate, this is not the proper application of use-mention. Voter suppression is a type of disenfranchisement, and it is obviously distinct from the category of just voting. Revolving Doormat (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote talks about transgender Hollywood not transgender voting. It is a WP:SYNTH, showing why standalone topics need to abide by the use-mention distinction to avoid coatrack articles. They just *use* transgender disenfranchisement as an expression, not *mention* it. Historyexpert2 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about "transgender voting"; that was you. You made the claim that the papers/books which discuss transgender disenfranchisement in the scope of voter suppression were not about disenfranchisement because they were really about voting. So I showed you that some discuss transgender disenfranchisement in the more broad sense of the term, such as being denied other privileges, such as jobs in the entertainment industry. This is both literally using the term disenfranchisement and discussing disenfranchisement—specifically as it pertains to transgender people.
However, those examples are unnecessary as the term has been defined since at least 2018 to be specifically to be about voting suppression which explains why most literature is specific: Transgender disenfranchisement is the practice of creating or upholding barriers that keep transgender individuals from voting and therefore restrict the principles of universal suffrage. [31]
I find your arguments to be weak and a misapplication of policy. I was not synthesizing a conclusion from multiple sources. I was showing that the term has been in use for at least the past 10 years to describe the disenfranchisement of transgender people (particularly in the United States, as shown). Revolving Doormat (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Lijil
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Herman, Jody L.; Cisneros, Nathan; Mahowald, Lindsay; Tentindo, Will (2024). The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on Transgender Voters in the 2024 General Election (PDF). Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute.
 Yes The Williams Institute is a research institute at UCLA School of Law. Nom accuses this of being an advocacy organisation because they specialize on sexual orientation and gender - that's like saying that a research institute that researches cancer is not an independent source for articles about cancer. They're an acknowledged research institute at a prestigious university's law school Yes Established research institute. Yes Detailed report every two years on "The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on Transgender Voters. Uses the term disenfranchisement: "As a result, we found that as many as 210,800 transgender Americans who are eligible to vote may find it difficult to do so because of voter ID laws, including 91,300 who could face disenfranchisement in states with strict photo ID requirements." ✔ Yes
Burns, Katelyn (2020-09-23). "The long history of trans voters' disenfranchisement, explained". Vox. Retrieved 2025-12-29. https://www.vox.com/identities/21441200/history-of-trans-voters-disenfranchisement-explained
 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Skinner-Thompson, Scott (2025). "Transgender Disenfranchisement". Washington University Law Review. 102 (6). Archived from the original on 2025-09-15. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1752/
 Yes Peer-reviewed scholarship Yes Peer-reviewed scholarship by a full professor specializing in constitutional law, civil rights and privacy law Yes The whole article is on the topic. ✔ Yes
"Trans Voters Will Be Disenfranchised in 2020 Unless We Take Action". Human Rights Watch. 2019-06-26. Retrieved 2020-06-12. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/26/trans-voters-will-be-disenfranchised-2020-unless-we-take-action
 Yes Yes Yes Whole article about topic. Sample quote: "the interplay of voter suppression, bureaucracy, discrimination, and high rates of incarceration disenfranchises transgender people". ✔ Yes
Zoledziowski, Anya (2022-10-27). "Tens of Thousands of Trans People Could Be Barred From Voting Against Anti-Trans Politicians". VICE. Retrieved 2025-12-29. https://www.vice.com/en/article/trans-voters-rights/
 Yes ~ According to WP:VICE there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice. That doesn't mean it's unreliable, just that people have different opinions. Yes The main topic of the article. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep per GNG, the sources presented by Revolving Doormat and Lijil are enough for notability. The article is well-written, concerns about POVTITLE can be dealt with via further editing. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Proposed deletions

[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Discrimination&oldid=1330710094"