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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin[edit]

This is an obscure topic, as discussed in WP:V. To quote that section, Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.

The sources here are various websites of dubious credibility. I think Otherkin would be a great topic for a Wikinfo article, but I don't see enough verifiability for this to be included here. Friday (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote (changed to keep, below). I'm confused. Doesn't a website count as a published source? There's no rule saying we have to use scholarly sources. ~~ N (t/c) 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what the nominator said. The article's sources are websites of dubious credibility, and the article seems to be built up from a lot of first-person stories on the Web. The veracity of those primary sources cannot be verified by Wikipedia readers, who are thus required to take the article on faith. Wikipedia needs to report the results of other people who have studied otherkin; right now, this article collects the experiences of otherkin, which makes it original sociological research. WP:NOR notes that it is rare for an article to be built from primary sources alone, especially if it is a contested topic. Ideally the article would be severely stubified but given its history I don't think the regular authors would be willing to do so, so delete to send the NOR message, and possibly write a new stub based on secondary sources until more can be found to expand the article reliably. I'd consider changing my vote if the article is cleaned up to not take primary sources at face value. — mendel ☎ 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think deleting an article to send a message is an appropriate course of action. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't imagine how deleting an article could not send a message, unless the contributors are known to have left Wikipedia. The message is "Do not put this sort of thing in Wikipedia". Sometimes the message is even made explicit with the "This article is deleted, please don't recreate it" template that I can't find right now. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue is not that deleting it will not send a message, but that it is not the appropriate way to send the desired message. It seems kind of agreed upon that otherkin is a real topic, just that there is the issue of getting proper sources and an article that reflects those sources. So wouldn’t deleting the article and putting up a warning to not recreate it be effectively hiding from the issue instead of trying to fix the issue itself? And if you intend to replace the article with something else, then I don’t see the point of deleting the article instead of normal editing. AtomicDragon 00:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sociological truths is the article offering on Otherkin? I don't see how it's original sociological research if it's not making any sociological claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's a "sociological truth"? I'm not saying it is/was reporting the results of an experiment, just that it was original research: concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication. But like "patent nonsense", "original research" is one of those things whose Wikipedia-specific definitions tend to be forgotten.. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A sociological truth is one that we need a sociologist to declare before we can acknowledge it as a truth. =P You seem to be working so hard to make sure the Wikipedia-specific definitions are remembered you're forgetting the functions they were intended to serve; we follow the "no original research" policy not as an end in itself, but to keep Wikipedia free of crackpots and cranks who want Wikipedia to publicize their pet theories. To say that people are not credible sources for statements about what their own beliefs are and that we must wait until a "reputable publication" has covered them and then take that publication's word over the word of those they're reporting on just shows the hazards of taking any policy and following it too literally too long. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOR says: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)". This seems to fit that description - "Otherkin say A, B, and C; people say X and Y about otherkin". Keep. ~~ N (t/c) 02:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its credibility or lack thereof aside, it's a belief system which has a great many adherents. Even when you eliminate otherkin.com, otherkin.net, and Wikimirrors, Google still returns >125K hits. DS 14:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - strange, even weird, but encyclopedical. JoJan 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying this should be deleted because the belief system isn't credible. Young Earth creationism isn't credible (to me) either, but clearly it's appropriate to have an article on it. If this article used reputable sources, I would have no issue with it. Some websites are reputable sources, some are not. Anyone can have a website and claim whatever they want. I invite anyone who's interested to read the websites listed as sources. These are personal websites, not cnn.com. Please, let's make this discussion about verifiability, not the irrelevant-to-our-purposes question of the merits of the Otherkin belief system. Friday (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Encyclopedias are the repository for obscure articles. Joaquin Murietta 16:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC) PS, why delete an article that cites ^ "Dealing with the Bloodthirst". Sanguinarius: Vampire Guide. as a source? Joaquin Murietta 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Good article about encyclopedic topic. I'd consider the FAQ and otherkin.net to be credible sources, especially because they are written by the community of "otherkin". It's easy enough, given that citations are provided, for the reader to make up his own mind about the veracity of the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you go to the Talk:Otherkin/Archive 3 you'll find quite a few published sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup -- There are core facts that are easily verifiable here: a number of people consider themselves to be otherkin, the exact specifics of which change depending upon who you talk to. The only parts that are unverifiable are whether what these people claim to be true is actually true (though common sense should tell us otherwise). The fact that these claims are made is undeniable, well-documented, and widespread. I severely question the rationale in interpreting the Wikipedia:No original research policy in such an exaggerated way. If we keep things down to object facts and avoid the weirdness we get periodically where certain editors claim it's real, that certain otherkin are better than others, that they are psychic and reinarnated and have animal DNA and yada yada yada as if they were proven, then there is no problem. Documenting nutty fringe beliefs is quite verifiable, as this particular one is not so small that there's any problems involved on that end, assuming we can get past the people constantly inserting their own POV and making false claims that rewriting for NPOV is "disrespectful" shos "bad faith" and whatever other nonsense they come up with. DreamGuy 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've never heard the term Otherkin before, but conceptually I will agree that as a sub-culture these people do exist... albeit in small numbers. I used to work night stock at a grocery store and the "vampires" would come in occasionally around 3 am. I guess blood goes down easier with an EZ-Cheez chaser. No vote yet though... I want to research the usage of this term more first.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm satisfied that this is not a neologism. Article does need a cleanup tag after the AfD is complete though.--Isotope23 16:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up. I think this is more common than nom would like. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with cleanup as Jacquelyn Marie stated. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. The dubious sources are not being cited for their dubious veracity, but as products of a subculture. There's a significannt, if fringe, subculture of people who think they are elves or vampires or whatnot, and the existance of a market in books and such about and being sold to such people is evidence that such a subculture exists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The main problem with the article (not just this version, but anything about the topic) is that it needs, perforce, to lump together a very broad spectrum of beliefs, ranging from simple alternate spirituality to pseudoscience to outright lunacy. So some of it is verifiable as much as anything in the realm of religion, spirituality, or philosophy; while other parts are very difficult to source reliably or at all. But it is worth keeping as, at least, a verifiably notable phenomenon (although until reading the article I had never actually heard the term "otherkin", even though instantiations of the belief system had been related to me). MCB 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:A Man In Black, User:MCB. I've added a reference from a print source as well. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being self-admittedly very odd, I've been familiar with this sub-culture for sometime, and am surprised at the variety of places I encounter it. I'm somewhat taken aback to see editors here unaware, which is more reason for an article. Furries alone are more numerous than anyone suspects. Xoloz 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Likability is not a criterion; the subculture's existence is demonstrable, and the term is in common (if not mainstream) use as a quick Google will show without effort. Coren 21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm a part of the Otherkin community, and it's more widespread than you might think. This page is dead-on for the common issues.69.110.12.6 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am also a part of the Otherkin community. It grows every day. It saddens me that editors here can not see how numerous we really are. This article is a broad but accurate description of our beliefs. Why delete it? I am sure Several Otherkin would agree. --Jwaf725 14:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There may be little point in commenting further, but I still want to clarify. Of course there are lots of them; what does that have to do with anything? I know there are also lots of people who, for example, like to eat jello. However, if someone wrote an article describing these folks and giving information about them, I'd want verifiability there also. There is a difference between what exists and what's verifiable. In theory, WP is meant to include only things that are verifiable. Friday (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same old Communists vs. people with red hair distinction. Self-described "otherkin" have a shared culture and influence each other (unless you want to get anal about whether there's a larger "otherkin" culture or if it's a series of distinct, discrete subcultures, but then you're into content issues and not whether or not this article should be deleted), instead of just having a shared attribute (a belief/delusion, depending on your POV). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • As for the content question of one subculture v multiple, that's a good, valid question. I'd be tempted to consider the spiritual side of the Otherkin movement to be a subset of modern shamanism. The problem with these kinds of content questions is, there has been no way to resolve them. With no proper sources, it's just up to editor's opinions. Thus, this article functions as a magnet for original research. We haven't even been able to resolve fundamental questions, such whether "Otherkin" is the proper blanket term for things like "Vampyres", "Dragons", "Elves", and "Therianthropes". When the Otherkin community has a variety of different definitions and beliefs, there's little hope of consensus on this article. Friday (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By itself, the number of othrekin means little, but combine with their self-describing nature yields a lot of material written on the group from within. Many attempt to describe the group as a whole, noting various observations. To me, that seems to be the point most of the original research is being done, even though WP has to attempt to combine information from several such sources (doesn’t this happen, to some degree, for most subjects?). Looking at the bigger picture, in my opinion, an article on this would add to WP’s encyclopedic value, as many people do stumble upon it and can benefit by seeing a general overview of the subject that is confirmable at the basic level in various otherkin sources. The details are much harder to work out, and as MCB already mentioned, such a diverse group is very hard to talk about as a whole, but that is a matter of cleaning up and not deletion in my opinion. I may be misinterpreting policy though, so I’ll only comment instead of vote for now. AtomicDragon 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This entire nomination seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding that we only demand verification, and bar original research, to the degree that a claim is questionable. To delete this article implies that we cannot verify any of the claims contained therein, not even "people who describe themselves as Otherkin exist"; to say that we cannot verify that, despite being able to go to hundreds of websites where people are describing themselves as Otherkin, because we cannot quote some professional source who has also read the websites affirming that yes, Otherkin exist -- if the nominator didn't appear to be entirely serious I would suspect an attempt at reductio ad absurdam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think it's rather clear from even a casual reading that the WP:NOR rule exists for preventing wikipedia from becoming a platform for cranks or pet theories; the Otherkin article is neither. Otherwise the article describing Brights would need to be deleted as well: it also explains the nature of a term used by a group to describe itself, and from primary sources at that. I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find other examples. Coren 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. Robert McClenon 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Mighty Keep Gimmiet 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This article is full of misinformation, original research and crank. Agriculture 05:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • have you researched the topic?Gimmiet 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and I challenge you to find peer reviewed and respected journals substantiating the beliefs posited in the article. Agriculture 05:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peer-reviewed? Vampire? Joaquin Murietta 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In otherwords, no scientist worth his salt will substantiate the ridiculous claims made on the page by angsty teens looking for an outlet fantasy world. Otherkin is bullshit. Agriculture 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So all of the people claiming to be otherkin simply do not exist? Are all such accounts that come up in my web-browser an optical illusion, since you seem to claim that they don't exist? And you are right that no scientist would likely write a paper on this in a science journal, since this is a cultural topic, not a science one. AtomicDragon 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize you are trolling, but I will bite. I never say people who suffer from dellusions do not exist, simply that the dellusion is just that with nothing to back up the claim but angsty blogs. FYI: Sociologists write plenty of scientific papers on cultural topics, it's their job. Psychologists likewise write plenty of papers on similar dellusions, their job as well. Agriculture 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, all I am suggesting is that as long as this group actually exists, there is reason for this page to not be deleted as an actual factual article can exist on it. If the article simply states verifiably what the people are (and hence listing what they claim, as claims not fact) and any recorded counterpoints to it, then that would appear to be a factual article to me. At the moment, the word trolling appears it can go both ways, so please avoid such attacks and so that we can move on and actually discuss a compromise on this.AtomicDragon 17:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the article could be reworked, I'd agree, but the POV pushers have so far prevented any factual additions to the article. On the issue of trolling, I am simply posting my opinion and stating it as such. You're making shit up and wildly and purposefully exaggerating my statements so you can troll for defenses to your strawman arguements. Nice to meet you AtomicDragon, now stop trolling because I have no tolerance for trolls. I will not respond to your trollish statements again. Agriculture 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have both made some exaggerations in the end as an attempt to illustrate a point. That worked out poorly, so it is at least a mistake on my part. Nonetheless, we will need to have some actual discussion to work this out, and simply not state that our own view on the situation is clearly the correct one.AtomicDragon 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please remember civility, Agriculture, and stop making personal attacks. Neither your original argument nor your subsequent argument hold up. Your first argument was 'no reputable source will ever say "Yes, what Otherkin claim about themselves is true"; therefore, we must delete this article as unverifiable.' The enthymeme there is "all articles about Otherkin must describe their claims as truth, rather than as their claims." This is not the case. Your subsequent argument is that "POV pushers will always prevent the article from being maintained in an NPOV state." The number of articles that are actually worth deleting simply because we cannot come to agreement on them is minimal. Since you yourself have only edited Otherkin twice and one of those edits was simply to place three cleanup tags on it at once, I question whether you have sufficient knowledge of what happens when you try NPOVing the article to declare that it could never possibly work. By the way, speaking of verifiability, would you mind giving us details on the University of Minnesota study you refer to in this edit? Since much of the discussion here has been made under the assumption that no professional study of those who believe themselves "otherkin" has been made, and since your edit (which I'm sure you marked 'minor' by accident) contradicts that, I'm sure providing details would be appreciated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think an important distinction was made: scholarly treatment of Otherkin is NOT going to amount to a scientific effort to prove or disprove their beliefs. That would just be silly. Christianity (or any major religion) is obviously verifiable as a belief system without needing to prove or disprove their beliefs. FWIW, the closest thing I've seen to a scholarly treatment of this is over at Clinical lycanthropy. Friday (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is controversial and certainly has its problems caused by warring POVs, but this is a topic not covered by other encyclopedias but worthy of inclusion in this one. Kit 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep But Clean Up For many, this is a spiritual path. No religion on the planet is independantly verifiable and yet there's nothing wrong with providing a basic set of information on what it's follower's believe. Writing a book on the subject doesn't make it true, it just makes it published. There are significant and serious sites which address the subject which act in the same manner of highlighting and defining the term. It doesn't matter if you share the belief or not. What wiki is supposed to be about is giving information on a variety of subjects. Why is otherkin not a valid subject to give information on? One need not share it's view to still acknowledge it is a valid viewpoint/belief/path for some people. It is, therefore, it should be discussed. You can't simply remove something because you don't believe it personally.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.