Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otherkin (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Otherkin

Otherkin (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)

• Strong Delete (or Very Weak Merge Therianthropy). Synopsis: This article is a long-standing problematic item which is deeply polarizing due to it's lack of factual basis and being primarily sourced upon, among other things, unverifiable sources, skewed original research/bollocks based in fan cruft (it is suggested within this debate page that there exists the possibility that it is in-fact not associated with furry, but it quickly becomes clear that it is in-fact analogous/identical to the group described in the Therianthropy page; this bears critical importance, as a redundant duplicate of an existing article with significantly worse sourcing, should be merged into the better of the two as a side-note at the minimum). As a page, it has historically been overseen by numerous persons who insist on pushing out factual information or alternative explanations based in reason in favour of their own biased perspectives which bear no brunt of critical scrutiny under their purview. Previously it has been claimed this is an "established belief system" with "many adherents", but is at best the outermost extremes of fringe beliefs. The overseeing group has also notoriously been uncivil (notably a long standing contributor has been outright banned for introducing various points of bias and non-neutral perspectives to various articles) and it takes no time to see that many of the participants prefer to bully rather then build the content of this article in order to push a specific narrative that suits them best. Attempts to edit the article have been met with much resistance and outright reversion feuds (despite numerous edits over the past year, the article remains much unchanged, even ignoring typical spam or trolling), as well as continuous antagonistic behaviour by those with a vested interest (and in some cases a provable outright conflict of interest) in a narrative which is unsuitable for wikipedia. Much of the news sources are rife with unverified/unverifiable claims, sensationalist phrasing/statements and imagery, and of great importance lacking any real notability or sustained interest. It is through these facts that it is strongly evident this is little more then a neologism, having not had sufficient backing from reliable sources.

Some of the most egregious offences come from the further marginalization of (among others) transgender people through the use of language intended to invoke an association with transgender peoples' struggles or any other sort of actual marginalization. This despicable demonstration of self-marginalization through the use of vulnerable peoples' struggles shows clearly the attitude of people intending upon positioning themselves as a vulnerable class outside the realm of what actually constitutes marginalization to invoke sympathy or special minority privileges that are reserved for those whom are at risk of actual harm for reasons beyond their actual control. Specifically, discussion is also heavily based on fallacy as well as manipulative use of weasel words to maintain this fallacious status quo.

To recap, specific citations:

• Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• A distinct lack of reliable sources which meet standards and are not tertiary, nor original research.
• It is a distinct possibility that otherkin may be a fork of therianthropy in order to dodge accountability for some of the more esoteric beliefs. If anything, this further pushes the need to have them together to demonstrate the width of the perspectives and interpretations from their adherents.
• Most sources are forum topics, newsgroup postings, magazine articles, books of non-academic value (with a strong focus on magical thinking), and other highly questionable/disreputable sources, such as:

1. (About self) Lupa (2007). A Field Guide to Otherkin. Immanion Press. pp. 25–26, 50, 52. ISBN 978-1-905713-07-3.
2. (Highly questionable) Michelle Belanger; Father Sebastiaan (2004). The Psychic Vampire Codex: A Manual of Magick and Energy Work. Weiser Books. ISBN 1-57863-321-4. /--/ Some feel that their difference is purely spiritual, while others believe there is a genetic difference between themselves and humanity. /--/
3. (Self-serving and self-published) "The Elven Nation Manifesto.....everyone must read this!!!!". alt.magick. 1995-02-06.

• Article content consists of much magical thinking, backed with aforementioned questionable sources, all presented as a belief system and is thus not considered able to pass muster of being "true":

1. Much of the material is based on individual points of view, such as "Some claim to be able to shapeshift mentally or astrally—meaning that they experience the sense of being in their particular form while not actually changing physically".
2. The very opening is a non-start with "Otherkin are a subculture people who socially identify as partially or entirely non-human".

• Overseers of the page content have a reputation of abuses:

1. Titanium Dragon, banned, had a history of introducing bias into articles through sneaky edits with questionable sources.
2. Jeraphine Gryphon, retired this past month, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the policies as well as conflating transgender marginalization, amounting to self-marginalization by suggested false-associations.

• This page is also redundant, given it can be at-best described as a sub-component of the larger and more inclusive Therianthropy page. As an alternative to deletion, portions which are not redundant and also pass a higher muster of fact-checking and verification should be merged into that page. Specific citation: Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. Furthermore the author articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, andoften acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.” from the document Robertson, Venetia. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the OnlineTherianthropy Movement". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 16 (3): 7–30. doi:10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7. Retrieved 31 October 2016.

• As noted below in the debate, there is a significant lack of reliable sources that establish a consistent definition, let alone distinguish the sub-group from other potential groups and as such signifies a lack of the level of notability presupposed for the existence of a wikipedia article. For instance, there is a conflict between two documents which taken alone may be seen as reliable, but when put alongside one-another demonstrate a contradiction:

Otherkin are individuals who identify as "not entirely human."

...

It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out.

Laycock, Joseph (2012). ""We Are Spirits of Another Sort": Ontological Rebellion and Religious Dimensions of the Otherkin Community". Nova ReUgio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 15 (3): 65–90. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.65. Retrieved 31 October 2016.

as compared to

This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.”

...

Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. The author also articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, and often acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.”

Robertson, Venetia (2013). "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the OnlineTherianthropy Movement". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 16 (3): 7–30. doi:10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7. Retrieved 31 October 2016.

which serves as a direct contradiction, demonstrating that even in academic sources, there is no consensus on the very existence of this group as the first (earlier published) treats one group as a sub-group of the other, and meanwhile the second source completely disregards any sort of distinction at all. Additionally from the second paper, a claim is made that may indicate this does not belong to be merged with furry but rather therianthropy instead:

While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals."

It also bears noting that the second paper cited is also the most recent, and lacks any and all references to the term "otherkin" altogether. It is suggestible that otherkin may simply be an alias or alternative moniker to therianthropy that is more "in vogue" for the constituent members, but mistaken for being distinct or dissimilar when the aforementioned papers provide strong evidence they are one and the same, sharing the same academic definition as well as having unclear super/sub-group classes. As such, it is strongly contestable as to the veracity of claims that these documents may be usable as the bedrock of a well-formed article, individually or even together. Lastly, there is the fact the first article sources therian.wikia.com, but it is important to note that this does not create authority within that page, and most importantly the author articulates the core principle independently and creates his own expression of it.

An important set of arguments arises from this. First is that if one were to reject the first article, the broad anti-furry statement in the second means this page belongs merged into therianthropy. If, on the other hand, the second were rejected then this page could be merged into furry. It is the position of this editor that it belongs in the former, as therianthropy bears most common ground with this page, as well as having the most background in the topics specific to this page - as compared to furry which would be more limiting.

Along with these citations, it is very important to note that the papers noted demonstrate there is no established convention among academics, as the latter of the two papers utilizes a different word while at the same time providing an identical definition. As such, this page on wikipedia is further pushed into the purview of the therianthropy page's content. It is also important to consistently remember that not only are the terms not consistent, but there is a distinct lack of documents which even provide sources which are not self-published or otherwise non-academic.

• Additionally regarding reliable sources, news sources in this case do not establish "existence" as a distinct and actual social group, let alone sub-group, and typically have a very sensationalist perspective, such as citing specific extreme cases and including photographs that stir the reader (such as that of "Stalking Cat" [1] (in [1])), as well as esoteric claims without any corroboration from scientific sources or validation such as the claim

"At first it was one of those things that I freaked out over, and then after a while it was like ah... I'm just gonna play with my tail for a minute." Every so often, John says he gets mental shifts: "I could just be at home, and all of a sudden, click, the fox part of me just kind of comes out for a while, and then it just goes."[1]

and

Plenty of kids are obsessive, but for Jessie, her love of wolves became a lifestyle and a spiritual experience, including "phantom shifts," or episodes where she felt the physical characteristics of being a wolf.[2].

The articles also demonstrate alternative theories which do not lend support to existence but rather disparage it such as

"I could certainly see a case being made that I latched on to wolves because of some difficult times in my life," Jessie told me. "I saw family in them, I saw protection and familiarity, and I saw an escape from what I was dealing with in my life."[2]

and further sensationalizing

"I would prowl my room late at night as a wolf, usually when I was restless or agitated. This was comforting to put myself into another place. Whether this is mental or spiritual, I don't really know. I still do a version of this to this day, and I know it's felt like both. I'm diagnosed with depression and generalized anxiety, and there are many days where putting myself in 'wolf mind' helps to relax me."[2].

Some articles go as far as to sensationalize to the point of offering voice to entirely unverified claims which are also explainable by actual scientifically valid reasons such as

Magpie Hrafnsdottir, a young woman from Chicago, has extra ribs, right where wings would be, and sometimes she can feel those phantom wings ache. Something else is missing; Magpie has always believed she has a secret twin. "I could feel her," she says. "At age five, I angrily asked my mother where she was, demanded to see my twin sister."[3]

and

Think Tolkien, not Keebler; regal nature spirits, not hunchbacked shoemakers. Arhuaine, a 34-year-old British elf, claims to heal more quickly and age more slowly than humans. "I was still showing my ID in liquor stores at the age of 32," she says, "and following major surgery, even my doctors were amazed at the speed of my recovery and the fact that I needed no painkillers."[3].

Please reference

• 1
• 2
• 3.

Much of these sources, aside from being sensational, are based in entirely unverified and unverifiable claims. Another key factor found to be lacking is there is no sustained or ongoing coverage - occasionally an article will appear in a random place with all of the previously noted hallmarks, but quickly again submerge.

Given these many facts, taken together it is clear this page should not have been created in the first place. For instance, the Therianthropy page contains not only the necessary context, but also contains all of the necessary context for the specifics of this article; furthermore, at the time of this pages' creation there was fewer sources available, and at this moment there are insufficient reliable sources to provide notability (even at its weakest) at a level to break from being the most extreme level of the fringes, as the vast majority of the works are original researched and/or self-published.

The closest this article should be allowed to remain in existence is for the fact that it may serve as a synonym and forwarder for one or more of many mental illnesses which may cause the symptoms exhibited by the prototypical person mentioned within the article (one or more of the following: claims about feeling of appendages, body/"species" dysmorphia, the various attributes of "species", claims of being numerous persons, as well as sexual claims) and the most important clinical lycanthropy, or those who've shepherded over its counter-productive evolution to the fictionalized state it remains in today.

• Clinical lycanthropy: Garlipp P, Gödecke-Koch T, Dietrich DE, Haltenhof H (January 2004). "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". Acta Psychiatr Scand. 109 (1): 19–22. doi:10.1046/j.1600-0447.2003.00243.x. PMID 14674954.
• Body/"species" dysmorphia: Cororve, Michelle; Gleaves, David (August 2001). "Body dysmorphic disorder: A review of conceptualizations, assessment, and treatment strategies". Clinical Psychology Review. 21 (6): 949–970. doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(00)00075-1.
• claims about feeling of appendages: Khateb, A., Simon, S.R., Dieguez, S., Lazeyras, F., Momjian-Mayor, I., Blanke, O., Landis, T., Pegna, A.J., Annoni, J. (April 2009). "Seeing the phantom: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of a supernumerary phantom limb". Annals of Neurology. 65 (6): 698–705. doi:10.1002/ana.21647.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

One of the biggest problems as previously mentioned is the associations that otherkin subgroup members attempt to draw between themselves and transgender persons. This is extremely problematic due primarily to:

• Transgender persons are notably marginalized in the mainstream, and suffer significant risks to their being. This is a state they're in, not by their choice - unlike otherkin subgroup members. This has significant impacts upon their ability to function in society; a fact that otherkin subgroup members do not have to deal with.
• Such "existence" of transpersons is not in dispute in terms of their claims due to extensive medical literature, while otherkin subgroup members only exist in terms of claims and their "identification" as such; there is no medical foundation upon which to base any claims of "existence" in the sense meant by "transgender people exist". This is a key point of the self-marginalization I previously mentioned.
• Spirital groups exist with coherent belief systems such as, but not limited to, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc. Notably, some schools of Buddhism lack a core "cannon" in terms of literature, but instead work through temple scholarship, learning from a teacher to a student. In this sense, the otherkin subgroup again falls flat due to a complete lack of unifying ideology, let alone "set schools". Each individual brings with them their own colourations and perspectives based largely upon other groups' belief systems.
• Within a materialist perspective, one must argue that an "animal brian" is within the human head. This has never been observed and based on only basic medical understandings is impossible due to a number of factors, such as significant genetic differences. Furthermore, being able to trace genetic information necessary for this would lead one to a non-start as at no point is there a place for such an introduction - in a reproductively transmittable manner - to take place.
• Within a psychological perspective, one must argue that an "animal mind" is within the human head. Again, this has never been actually observed and furthermore, cannot be due to significant differences in the structure of the brain's components between species, processing of information, instinct, to more esoteric psychological situations such as free-will, consciousness, and self-image. Merely having an incorrect self-image is itself not foundation, it is easily slotted into one of the many previously mentioned mental illnesses.
• This lack of both secular and spiritual evidence for their existence lends to the identification of untrue and furthermore unverifiable statements made by these groups within this wiki page.

Tianmang 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (last revision: Tianmang (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC))

• Merge to furry fandom or tag-bomb with relevant cleanup templates, move to draftspace, or rewrite.KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• @KATMAKROFAN: There is now an alternate place which may be relevant to merge into as per Jarandhel's citation: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." : specifically therianthropy. Tianmang (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Because of the complaints above, I did a few searches for what I expected would reveal better sources than those currently in the article, such as JSTOR and Google Scholar. JSTOR didn't turn up much, but I did find [2] from Nova Religio, a peer-reviewed journal. Google Scholar turned up more hits: [3] published by Brill Publishers, [4] published by Ashgate Publishing, [5] published by Sydney University Press, [6] published by Taylor & Francis. Google News has some other hits, too: [7] from The Village Voice, [8] from Vice, [9] from The Week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A large amount of the language in the article is hinged upon the basis that this is a factually-based system based on some physically-provable (vis a vis transgender-like) or spiritual (of which no solid consensus exists, necessary for any sort of "religious" association, furthermore the first article [1] is paywalled and cannot be properly evaluated) condition; news sources can hardly provide any sort of backing for these types of situations, and those stories cited are sensationalist and opinion-based at the most modest of evaluation with no reference to actual verifiable evidence. Furthermore, there is no biological or even psychological basis (outside of blatant illness) in the citations you have provided, and some of them are duplicates of existing flawed references within the original article. Those which remain ([4], [5]) deal with sociological orders of a community based on a common theme, not unlike furry fandom, and is such just noise. This strongly evidences that it is, in fact, part of furry community and should be merged or be made non-existent in the form it currently is in altogether, through either a full on deletion or complete rewrite with no reference to any of the magical thinking that might be a trait merely associated with this subgroup. Tianmang (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read the link that you cited, WP:PAYWALL, it says not to reject sources because they're paywalled. News sources are perfectly fine to report what people believe. The otherkin community is obviously notable if it is studied to this degree in academic sources, including academic presses. You can't reject a source simply because it's paywalled or doesn't come to the conclusions you want. Any content issues can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We need a third party to provide us with the text or meaning at the very least, that has not been done. You cannot put forth a paywalled article without a way to validate it and expect it to be accepted. Tianmang (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted a request to obtain either a copy or an impartial synopsis of the contents beyond the abstract for us to review. Tianmang (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? Full Text via archive.org Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you retrieving that for me, but please do not assert what I did or did not do given I actually went out and attempted to locate it, and having failed filed to have it retrieved.Tianmang (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This page is just ridiculous without an equally ridiculous social idiocy backing it. Pyrusca (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. The article is itself flawed, there's no need to make it personal in this manner. Tianmang (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: And the winner of the coveted "Why-Does-This-Have-A-DMOZ-Page" award is... the topic of the article being discussed! KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: First of all, a bit of disclosure - In addition to being a long-time past editor of the Otherkin article here on Wikipedia, I am the owner/administrator of AnOtherWiki, a wiki about the otherkin community, and the current owner/administrator of Otherkin.net. I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.

The problem with merging this article into the article about furry fandom is very simple: the otherkin community is not part of the furry fandom in any way. Individual members of the otherkin community may also be members of the furry fandom, but equally individual members of the otherkin community may be part of the Star Trek fandom, the Harry Potter fandom, the NASCAR fandom, etc. That does not make the community itself a subset of any of those fandoms. Merging this article into the article on furry fandom would do harm to readers understanding of both the otherkin community and the furry fandom by inaccurately portraying them as one thing. For more on the intersection of the two communities, I would suggest reading the following: 1

As for deleting it, I believe the notability of the subject is easily established. I can cite newspaper articles, magazine articles, academic articles, even documentaries on the subject. In multiple languages, from around the world. User NinjaRobotPirate already listed a few, but there are many more. The truth is, the otherkin community exists. It has existed for 26 years now and shows no sign of disappearing. It has a loosely defined set of beliefs associated with it. Any article about the existence of the community has to mention those beliefs. Doing so is encyclopedic, and is neither unverifiable nor what is meant by WP:BOLLOCKS even if you find the beliefs of the community to be bizarre and you do not personally agree with them. If any article about a community with bizarre beliefs were to be deleted from Wikipedia, surely we'd need to delete the articles on Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, and many others - no?

Finally, I must object to the biased statement with which you conclude your nomination for deletion: "The closest this article should be allowed to remain in existence is for the fact that it may serve as a synonym and forwarder for one or more of many mental illnesses which may cause the symptoms exhibited by the prototypical person mentioned within the article". You've placed a strong emphasis on reliable sources and verifiability up until now - could you please cite any source which meets those standards in which a mental health professional states that otherkin as a group are suffering from a mental illness? Jarandhel (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, you've intentionally biased the conversation by means of your claims about the vandalism to the wiki which you manage. That is an external site and your claims have no bearing to the conversation here, they merely serve to introduce doubt to the legitimacy of the conversation itself, nothing more. Since you've already poisoned the well with this innuendo, I would highly recommend you submit to an arbitrator an unaltered record of the edit including IP, Username and/or Email address so it may be resolved by a third party and prevent such vandals from having an impact here.
• The articles you mention have been previously refuted for various reasons. News articles only demonstrate isolated cases of significance, and are all local, opinion-pieces or puff pieces pertaining to a local novelty. The Vice piece specifically is itself based upon and written to convey a sensationalized perspective of the sub-group. Furthermore, the aforementioned list is itself full of these sorts of materials, there is very little beyond what is already cited; significant amounts of the material is irrelevant and only pertains to a broad set of viewpoints put forth by members of the sub-group, and do not actually deal with the group in and of itself. Much of this material could be distilled down into a variety of other pages, such as shamanism, christianity, buddhism, and even further beyond into general sociology due to the grossly broad nature of this archive.
• This group is quite simply just an offshoot of Furrys, and plenty fringe at that. Media produced by and for a group itself is not reliable source material, nor are the aforementioned opinion columns or puff pieces in the local paper. These beliefs are themselves also, inconsistent; no group agrees on any set of beliefs and the group is highly fragmented and it is neigh impossible to pin down any sort of "cannon" to the beliefs other then the overarching self-assigned title. It isn't like when a church has a schism and two complete self-consistent groups break away and have fully formed dogmas. At best, one could put references to the subject within shamanism. It's not merely "hard" to believe, it is simply based on completely absurd claims as I've actually mentioned: identify as partially or entirely non-human, which serve little other then to invoke an association with people such as transgender. The key here is a bunch of people who are on the extreme end of the furry fandom, but simultaniously feel rejected by it and/or reject it for the hard-line stance one takes over the other. In the end, the group is one and the same, just little more then political undercurrents and tall tales.
• Otherkin notability is itself an offshoot of furrys, they're gaining in notability, and this group is just a parallel development within that same group that becomes more visible with the hightened visibility of the origin and superset group. The only reason for such alienations, as previously reiterated, is to establish a distinguishment between the "hard-line" or "the rest". It certainly isn't uncommon for the groups to distinguish one-another within the overarching group, but this can be readily done within the furry page. The very citation you make establishes that these two things do in-fact belong together given that they are externally indistinguishable. The separate page's contents are egregiously erroneous enough to be significantly more harmful to the reader who expects to find some semblance of verifiable truth then speaking points a group has about themselves (going as far as to manage the page themselves).
• Additionally, you've failed to establish the factuality of the article content given that it is itself written such that the claims of the participants are angled to be considered true, and as such continues to fit the very definition of bollocks. This is a hard line that must be maintained, and as of the current moment the article is nowhere near authoritative in its claims; nor can any of the materials provided thus far establish verifiability to them. This page, as such, currently only serves to provide the viewpoint of a single sub-group of a cultural sub-group, it is not encyclopaedic at all.
• Mental illness is a very good explanation of all the claims: claims about feeling of appendages, body/"species" dysmorphia, the various attributes of "species", claims of being numerous persons, as well as sexual claims and the most important clinical lycanthropy. Each of these pages provide full details, and looking at any of the otherkin material it is readily apparent where each belongs. A doctor is not going to go out of their way to address a blanket term when they can deal with each symptom individually in a therapy session. As such, asking for a doctor to address a sub-group individually has multiplicity ramifications to how all groups of mental illnesses must be treated in that each and every group with irrational beliefs or other symptoms must be addressed individually through the academic process. This is not how medical literature works, it works through the addressing of specific symptoms and syndromes.

Selected background from each page for reference:

• Clinical lycanthropy: Garlipp P, Gödecke-Koch T, Dietrich DE, Haltenhof H (January 2004). "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". Acta Psychiatr Scand. 109 (1): 19–22. doi:10.1046/j.1600-0447.2003.00243.x. PMID 14674954.
• Body/"species" dysmorphia: Cororve, Michelle; Gleaves, David (August 2001). "Body dysmorphic disorder: A review of conceptualizations, assessment, and treatment strategies". Clinical Psychology Review. 21 (6): 949–970. doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(00)00075-1.
• Claims about feeling of appendages: Khateb, A., Simon, S.R., Dieguez, S., Lazeyras, F., Momjian-Mayor, I., Blanke, O., Landis, T., Pegna, A.J., Annoni, J. (April 2009). "Seeing the phantom: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of a supernumerary phantom limb". Annals of Neurology. 65 (6): 698–705. doi:10.1002/ana.21647.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I have struck through this secondary reference due to coming under attack when it had already been declared a dead point down below, and struck out up-above. Tianmang (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: 1 2 3 4 5. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.

That very statement is made in bad faith. You allege that a wikipedia user did this edit without any actual backing evidence. The title of the page is publicly visible, and any individual on the internet is able to glean it and then turn around and do this. For the record, I will disclose my IP in fragment form since it is now readily apparent you're throwing out an actual accusation (...report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user ...): 162.253.xxx.xxx . I encourage administrators to validate this. (accidentally away in earlier edit) Tianmang (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's an extremely bad faith gesture, given that a name alone is not itself evidence. What your comment amounts to is character assassination with no actual evidence. I would recommend you to refrain from further attempts to characterise people in this thread based on what is nothing more then speculation and conjecture. If you believe there is actual reason, there are processes and people you can utilize to have your concerns addressed - attempting to address them here continues to poison debate on the subject at hand. Tianmang (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Followup: Please read the policy which is also incidentally cited at the top of the edit page. This entire segment above is disruptive behaviour and should be removed so as to not further taint the conversation. Tianmang (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Now, as for your individual refutations. I don't believe there is a consensus yet that the news articles cited are evidence of only "isolated cases of significance". You claim that is so, but again we are talking about news articles from around the world stretching back decades. Nor are the news articles the only articles available on this subject. Again, both myself and NinjaRobotPirate have provided links to other sources. If more are needed, Academia.edu has two separate tags for academic articles on this subject: 1 2

We're working toward a consensus, and there is most certainly no consensus that there is any sort of agreement to the legitimacy of the articles. Please do not introduce meaning to my words or innuendos, this is again bad faith on your part to argue the facts and statements rather then twist them around to give them meaning which is most certainly not there. Significant numbers of the articles are provided by "independent contributors", this is an aggregation point and has no actual credibility given the fact anybody can add tags. Furthermore, many of the articles cited are just rehashes of the same previously cited articles. Further research into the sources, and of notability, the citing party - much of the works constitutes original research and is not in a peer-reviewed station of any sort.

As for your claim that the article has been "written such that the claims of the participants are angled to be considered true", that would be a case for re-writing the article but not for deleting it. But I would ask: exactly what language you would prefer? The article currently speaks very clearly about the *beliefs* and *claims* of the community and makes no assertions of truth with regard to them, even going out of its way to state that particular beliefs have not been substantiated.

At the minimum the page should be merged into the furry page, since it has no substance beyond what is previously been repeatedly stated. If it is to exist, it must not make assertions of truth, claims about any unifying idea beyond the extremely broadest definition (which would be a consensus issue), acknowledgement of its existence in terms of being a fandom. However, I do not agree that it is even warranting of its own page at all, since it still boils down to being a fan subgroup.

Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin:

It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The noted quote indicates that it is itself disputed, and cites a number of other groups which have wiki pages individually among others. Furthermore, this is a quoted statement from a third party, not an assertion by the article itself, which does nothing to lend credibility nor asserts truth. Furthermore, this article is itself topic focused solely upon religious implications, invalidating significant portions of the text within the page as it is. Removing it would reduce it to little more then a stub, which would be perfect for merging with another page in a similar vein; however given it is generally understood by the source to not be compatible with furry, it would need to be found a new home which is more appropriate (I might suggest Paganism, but that would itself be another topic of consensus). As such, this lone article which only establishes a basic analysis of the group as a theoretical religious one, does not itself provide sufficient foundation to maintain this page as a separate entity. Tianmang (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a tangent to the otherkin subgroup, and if anything provides evidence that otherkin should be merged into therianthropy due to their similarity and direct relartionship in nature, appearance and practise. Please read previous comment on the first citation. These articles do not establish sufficient cause for otherkin to be a separate and distinct page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The idea of merging otherkin into therianthropy is a lot like the idea of merging an article on the United States into an article on Kansas. Therianthropy is a sub-group within the otherkin community, specifically composed of those who identify as animals/beasts (as opposed to elves, angels, etc.) Otherkin is the larger umbrella term for everyone who identifies as non-human, regardless of variety. If a merger were to take place, it would make *far* more sense the other way around. Jarandhel (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the literature itself that you have cited makes no distinguishment let alone super/sub-classing them. Furthermore, the page itself articulates many of the shortcomings of the original page eloquently and with proper citations and statements which themselves apply directly to the otherkin page. As such it is clearly either a directly comparable (equivalent) or subclass of Therianthropy. The very opening sentence provides the necessary background: The most well known form of therianthropy is found in stories concerning werewolves.. This establishes the fact that this is not a narrow concept, only that a common misconception such as the one made in your assertion. The correct metaphor is merging a small separate state lacking governance into an established country with the faculties to support its members, as is what this would be analogous to. Tianmang (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So now you've highlighted there is in fact a contradiction between the two articles, wherein the first I have already addressed and I won't repeat myself, and the second does not even make mention of the "otherkin" group - lumping them all in together. How could this topic have its own wiki page if even the academics have not actually agreed upon the specifics of the super-class/sub-class relationship? One single source does not an article make, let alone an entire collection of people in a unique and distinguished manner. This at best remains a footnote in in the therianthropy page; Again, this is simply not significant enough to warrant a whole page for the concept, let alone having it identified uniquely. Furthermore, your argument is circular, you're just jumping back and forth between the articles and cherry picking single phrases which back up your own viewpoints without taking anything into account with context, and conveniently ignoring how the two articles articulate separate statements. Meanwhile, one page is fully formed and well written, while the other - this otherkin page - lacks substantial substance enough to stand upon its own two feet. Tianmang (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Further strengthening the position is the second article itself which provides this direct contradiction: Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. Furthermore the author articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, andoften acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.”. This flies directly in the face of the given original otherkin page introductory segment as well as the first article. Tianmang (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Finally, please refrain from laying on the shift key when typing words such as AGAIN; if your point is refuted, then it is proper course to provide a refutation in return or move on. The point of the discussion is to remain cool in order to arrive at a consensus, and antagonistic behaviour will not yield useful results to this debate.

Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the DMOZ.org Otherkin Category will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That page is a user published and thus unreliable, wiki. The author of the paper corroborates the sentence found on that page with his own statement and provides an actual analysis, that does not make the page itself authoritative; the effect of such a claim would make a lot of highly questionable sources authoritative without any actual oversight via peer-review or proper sourcing. Using an example from an non-authoritative site is fine, it does not however create the basis needed here. DMOZ is again, an aggregation point. Please stick with actual articles which follow the reliable source guidelines. You need reliable sources, not self-published or lists of pages, it does not provide verifiability; DMOZ has great potential to contain significant amounts of fringe material that would not be found on wikipedia, and even its hierarchical methods have been criticized for lacking expression, and is furthermore maintained by editors not unlike wikipedia, but lacking policies such as neutrality toward topics.

The contradiction is plain as day, please provide actual evidence to back your point. The contradiction is in the very fact that one group is claimed to be superset to the other, and then it is directly superseded by a new definition of one of the containing members which is identical. This is not a "misinterpretation", this is self-evident in the articles themselves - read them. At this point, the only argument you are providing is outlined in this essay which violates neutral perspective, verifiability and brings in significant original research from unreliable sources. Again, I am sorry, but the contradiction and the evidence is overwhelming that this is not an independent topic worthy of its own wikipedia page, but in fact a sub-component at best of another - notably Therianthropy. Tianmang (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already provided a WP:RS that very clearly states therianthropes are a type of otherkin, the Laycock article. You are ignoring that source in favor of your personal interpretation of the Robertson article supposedly providing an "identical" definition for therianthropy, similar to the way that you previously claimed the Otherkin article should point to various mental disorders based on your reading of the definitions for those disorders as identical. This is, again, a violation of WP:SYN.

This is clearly not the case, you are the one who is producing synthesis (in the most literal of manners, by synthesizing points from multiple articles to produce a position that supports your own perspective, by ignoring points of one article which disagree with your proposed claims), by choosing to disregard the very definition provided by a reputable source which brings into contest your own definition. This is not an interpretation as you continue to insist despite being unable to actually refute, as I have refuted one article with another which establishes not only the claim you make is not accepted convention, but that there are entirely different ones which mirror meaning in its entirety (which incidentally actually meets measure of significance even at the level WP:NFRINGE); I have accomplished this without resorting to saying "one document is correct, but only in-part" as your arguments are prone to do (Claiming the group cannot be merged into therianthrope due to a small portion of one article which conveniently says that (itself unable to provide sufficient underlying content to support an article), about what you posit is a sub-group, but then disregarding the contradictory statement which works against your claim, which I have highlighted repeatedly due to its inherit importance. Please review it, as you are mistaking comparison of two articles - with no omissions of convenience - for synthesis, where I would be combining two articles language in a manner that only you have demonstrated throughout this entire debate). It bears specifically reviewing an important fact as to the second article - which deals exclusively with therianthropy, but not in any regard otherkin - makes points which you attempt to utilize in your arguments. Given the contradictory nature of the definitions I have cited, the reason why your argument is impossible to make without first rectifying this impasse is with the one contradiction, the two articles become incompatible. Also, significantly, your claim is that a statement drawn about what you allege to be a subgroup - that is they "are not furry", cannot be attributed to the super-set. This as such does not discount otherkin being merged into furry, only that therianthropy.

Finally regarding this paragraph you have posted: I have already dropped my previous argument case, yet you're continuing to dredge it up - out of context - and using it as a means to distract from the argument at hand.

There is no contradiction between the two articles. One focuses on the therian subgroup, the other on the broader otherkin community which contains the therian subgroup. You, and you alone, are making the conclusion, not stated by any source and therefor WP:SYN, that the definition given for therians is "identical" to the definition for otherkin, despite every source including the one you have decided is somehow superior stating that therianthropes believe they are specifically non-human ANIMALS. As for your statement that a statement about a subgroup cannot be attributed to the super-set, I believe it would help you to consider the formal logic: If A is a part of B, and A is not a part of C, then B is not a part of C. A concrete example: If Kansas is a part of the United States, and Kansas is not a part of South America, then the United States is not a part of South America. Jarandhel (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa);

Actually, yes, you can. Set inclusion is a transitive relationship. This is easily demonstrated using mathematics: If you have a set X which includes the numbers 1,3,5,8,and 9, then you know that this set is not part of the set of odd numbers because you know that one of its members, 8, is not odd. Since therianthropes are members of the set otherkin, and therianthropes are not part of the set furries, then otherkin cannot be a part of the set furries. And even without the Robertson article, you still have the Laycock article stating "furries are right out". Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You clearly do not actually understand what that actually means. Please review the examples, and you will see that the subset is a more constricted of the superset (which may consist of many constricted subsets while not necessarily having all of their specific properties - only having a broad enough definition which may include all of them - which cause them to be incompatible with one-another directly). For instance: therianthropes are the set of all people who believe in the aforementioned systems of thought. Otherkin are a subgroup who specifically believe in "paranormal" or otherwise "fantasy" creature identities, that much we can agree upon. Now, this does not go in the opposite direction, as therianthropes do not necessarily believe this - they are a more open set, and are thus capable of including the subset of otherkin. If we reverse this relationship, then the more narrow does believe cannot contain the broader might believe, as it would violate the laws of set theory I have just outlined. Please stick to valid arguments. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset.

No, you have not demonstrated this irrefutable. This is your personal claim. You have MULTIPLE WP:RS telling you that therianthropes are a type of otherkin. That directly refutes your claim that the terms have identical meanings. The sources have already been cited. The onus is on you to provide a source that states the same claim, and to show why that source should be accepted over multiple sources that specifically say otherwise. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is one WP:RS which establishes the relationship. The others making mere mention of the word - in isolation - is not a contradiction to my argument. Furthermore, my argument is actually again irrefutable given the evidence you have provided. If you have more which demonstrates a subset/superset relationship which differs from the one which I have demonstrated (and again a single word in isolation does not a definition make), and actually can reach the level of multiple documents disproving my statement - do so. For the moment, you have yet to bear the brunt of evidence. Also and of great importance is saying it over and over and over and over does not make it so. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.

File whatever claims you want. You are ignoring the direct statements of multiple WP:RS in favor of your personal theory that otherkin is either a subset of therianthropy or "a fork of therianthropy in order to dodge accountability for some of the more esoteric beliefs" based purely on your reading of the definition given by Robertson. That's exactly the same kind of improper complex synthesis WP:SYN you were previously engaged in with regard to your personal theory that otherkin are suffering from various mental illnesses based on your reading of the definitions of those mental illnesses, and I am very confident that any admin reading this discussion will both see that and see that I have not been uncivil to you despite you throwing around claims of bad faith from the moment I first posted. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, since you haven't read and understood the argument - I demonstrated a contradiction among the WP:RS, and you have not provided multiple defintions to refute. Citing multiple documents utilizing a word merely states that the word is in use, not its relationship - which I have established.

As for the filing, it shall be done given the remarkable levels of hostility that continue, as well as the latest batch of non-argument arguments. I strongly suspect you are in for a very unpleasant surprise given that - from the very beginning - you have muddied the water by making false accusations without evidence about an editor in inappropriate fashion, using sarcasm, refusing to argue the evidence and instead trying to use WP:SYN (or just attacking people as you did when you first entered with your accusation which bears absolutely NO relevance to the conversation), using articles as if they contain material which they do not, etc. However, that is not for me to decide; I'll let them look it over for themselves - I'm confident enough given I am still filing it after collecting together the information necessary, and this is hardly an opaque situation, that I most certainly will not be pained by these proceedings. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy

This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)

Tianmang (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and as a type of otherkin therians DO consider themselves to be other-than-human, just like every other form of otherkin. The very next line goes on to state: "Therians, for short, are persons who feel such a profound connection with a non-human animal that they feel this animal is an integral part of their identity." It is clearly NOT intended to cover those who consider themselves other-than-human but not animal, such as elves, fairies, angels, etc. Again, therian is the subset, a term for a specific type of otherkin who consider themselves animal. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

By your own claims of subset/superset (albeit correctly utilized), would it not also be so that anything then which is a multicellular organisms of considerable size - such as these other entities you cite - are not animals then? Mythological or not, they certainly aren't bacteria. Furthermore, you don't get to establish convention by saying it is so - my prior evidence again demonstrates a longer standing and robust convention which includes all of the claims you make about otherkin. Once again, there is no refute or rebuttal in your words, just attempts to argue semantics. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"There is a not a finite list of Otherkin "types," but some of the most common include faeries and elves, vampires, therianthropes (individuals who identify with animals and shapeshifters), angels and demons, and "mythologicals" (legendary creatures such as dragons and phoenixes). What is actually signified by these categories is often vague and highly subjective. For example, Lupa identifies as a therianthrope, specifically a wolf" Laycock, We Are Spirits of Another Sort again, already cited, and the second time this definition is clearly given in that text. Full text, again: 1

The second article listed, again and for the last time - cites very specifically a definitive definition which completely overrules the claim of the article's text by including the very people that were claimed by this secondary - redundant - page. Repeating yourself with the tone and attitude an article which I have already read is once-again uncivil. You are not bringing new material to light, and again are chery picking your words which backup a position which has already been thoroughly refuted. This article fails to establish convention, as it is followed by a later document - within the very same journal - which features a different word and an identical definition, which incidentally through the very page which I am proposing to merge into, has significant conventional attachment to the definition which is shared.

"This chapter explores how, by claiming the animal as an aspect of their lived subjectivity, Therians (animal-human Otherkin) enact the simultaneous death of the animal and the human, while paradoxically reinforcing a generic and romanticised concept of the animal." Page XXI-XXII of book Animal Death, edited by Jay Johnston and Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, and published in 2013 by Sydney University Press. Text: 2

More cherry picking. You've found a single section in a book which deals with materials not pertaining to the existence of the group as separate and distinct; this does not provide the necessary definition to establish a definitive relationship in the explicit manner the second article articulates. Furthermore, this article pre-dates the second article, thus in academics has clearly not established this as an accepted convention. This topic has not even been researched by reputable sources sufficiently to establish it independently of the therianthrope page for the purposes of wikipedia. If you are to choose to put forward this item, you must establish that it is stating in no-uncertain terms a contradiction to my own claims - which is to the nature of the group, how it is actually distinguishable from and super-set to the therianthrope group. Merely referring to it, a single word, is insufficient, since it does nothing to rectify the contradiction I have established.

"The Otherkin are a loosely affiliated group of like-minded individuals who have formed a virtual online community. Their shared belief is that some people are, either partially or completely, non-human. To quote, ‘Otherkin is a collective noun for an assortment of people who have come to the somewhat unorthodox, and possibly quite bizarre, conclusion that they identify themselves as being something other than human.’ Further, they are ‘an alternative community that accepts everything from therianthropes to extraterrestrial fae,’ the former being ‘a deity or creature combining the form or attributes of a human with those of an animal,’ and the latter being an alternative term for fairies." Danielle Kirby, "Alternative Worlds: Metaphysical Questing and Virtual Community Amongst the Otherkin," in Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on the Sacred, ed. Frances Di Lauro, (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2006) 275-287. Text: 3

This [[single article, does not provide sufficient backing (even taken together with the other eligible document) for this page to exist, and given it is - again - in stark contrast to the established conventions, while simultaneously is not academic in quality given the simple fact it is not from a peer-reviewed publication and lacks any sort of academic rigours and authority; going so far as to be a very likely candidate of self-published work. Furthermore, it fails to definitively provide the necessary level of authority necessary to overcome fringe's specific requirements.

Do I need to keep going? Jarandhel (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have yet to establish all of notability, consistency as well as verifiability in a sustained (and in the case of news material sustained) manner, instead giving undue weight to mostly one source which fails to establish convention that you are pushing for. This is again is not sufficient. As the previous articles have been refuted due to the aforementioned articles ineligibility by a contradiction of the claims you make (and this will remain so despite your insistence otherwise which lacks any actual argument beyond baseless accusation, which I will stress is in the best interest of the debate to overcome rather then continue to rally behind, since circular-arguing this irrefutable statement (given the current supporting evidence) services absolutely zero useful function), suspect sources, and also your attempts at synthesis while at the same time claiming that I am interpreting what is not there - when it is so explicitly and demonstratively clear - is again further evidence if incivility on your part.

Furthermore, and at this impasse in the conversation, as you have not paid attention to my continuous citations: you insist on making personal attacks, innuendos, and sarcasm upon myself and other editors who are for non-keep votes, which you have even to this moment still not recanted upon, despite having been explicitly cited each and every time. This is the last time I will address your incivility directly, the next step I will take is to file a complaint about your consistently adversarial conduct toward this debate which is well-founded. Let me be absolutely clear, this is a debate, not a soapbox for fringe theories or baseless accusations upon perfectly valid tactics. Tianmang (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As for your assertions that "mental illness is a very good explanation of all the claims", again I would ask - do you have any WP:RS that states that the otherkin community, as a group, suffer from any of these mental illnesses? Or that these illnesses are prevalent within the otherkin community at any greater rate than the general populace? You claim that "Each of these pages provide full details, and looking at any of the otherkin material it is readily apparent where each belongs." But you are not a medical professional able to offer that diagnosis, and even if you were it would be original research unless you can cite a WP:RS which associates the group and the illness. Jarandhel (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, since you apparently did not see it, I stated quite clearly that it is not the duty of scientists nor doctors to comb through each and every subgroup in existence making claims based in mental illness to identify specific illness traits. I have cited each and every claim above with the relevant page which deals with the context of the illness(es) which produce the consequent effect i the person, each of which is backed by reputable sources. Mental illnesses, like all illnesses, is addressed in terms of symptoms and tests of validity, not by a self-identified group.

Tianmang (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason that diagnosis is done by trained medical professionals rather than amateurs with a list of symptoms. Moreover, Wikipedia policy *specifically* requires that claims such as this be directly sourced rather than synthesized. See WP:SYN, specifically the example given of an improper complex synthesis: "The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Jarandhel (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I will certainly concede that given what you have stated is valid, but that does not bear in the existence of otherkin seeing as there is no actual diagnostic evidence except beyond what I have already stated; and having stated quite clearly which you have chosen to ignore that these descriptions are based upon the claims made by so-called otherkin persons themselves. That being said, that only means this page ought to be deleted outright or merged into furry rather then simply replaced with a place-holder as I had previously suggested was plausible. Tianmang (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep given the reliable sources found by NinjaRobotPirate. Multiple RS show notability per WP:GNG and with them, an ability to write at least a modest verifiable article. That is all that matters at AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reliability is in dispute, notability is also as at the very least a unique item outside furry Therianthropy subculture. Merge has also been previously proposed, and being verifiable is itself not sufficient for an article to exist. Furthermore, there are significant problems with the news sources. Tianmang (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The subculture exists and is notable enough to be written about. Some aspects of it may be covered by more specific articles, but it is still a valid general topic. . Content can be dealt with by other means than deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Earlier it has been suggested to merge, what are your thoughts on this? Tianmang (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

that can be discussed separately , but it seems to be absurd to merge a topic about a group of myths to an article about a modern cult or group(s) of people or thinking or pretending some aspect of similar myths is in some sense real, or real to them. These are two different topics, with very different sources. Merging them is confusing to the understanding of the modern topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Before anyone gets the idea because of my username and my edits in the article -- no, I'm not otherkin and have no positive feelings toward them. Now, I've (...painstakingly) gone over the article in the past several times to make sure all statements are backed by published sources (since it's a controversial topic and supporters like to come and insert their original research every now and then), I've looked at the texts myself and judged the publishers' credibilities (any recent edits don't count, I've been inactive). Since there has been a number of reliable sources that discuss the topic in more than a mention then that's actually all we need to have an article on it, according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Case closed, really. People are reaching for reasons to delete the article because the topic is silly. That's not a valid reason to delete it, we have articles on plenty of other strange beliefs. Also I wouldn't support merging with the other mentioned articles since it's a distinct topic and distinct community. EDIT: I have a "reputation of abuses"? lack of understanding of policy? What kind of flying nonsense is this, nominator? I've been here for years, have a ton of edits on wildly different topics, have contributed in different areas, I know our policies very well. You're the one who's brand new here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Seems reasonably referenced, though some of the publications are from slightly far-out imprints; it'd be nice to see more news sources, though I appreciate the concern about sensational coverage. With regards to merging, Why be human when you can be otherkin links the concept to therianthropy and lycanthropy, but not to furry, and I tend to agree - for therians, and otherkin, it's more a matter of belief in being, not appreciation. "Therians" as a group could be seen as similar to "otherkin", while "therianthropy" is similar to "otherkin-ness"; but I still think we'd end up with two articles - one about the metaphysical concept, another about a modern-day subculture adhering to that concept. It might be more reasonable to use otherkin as the subculture article. However, I'd hesitate to make such a merge without strong backing from reliable sources, just as I'd hesitate to merge bronies to furries (compare [10] and [11]). There's a bright line, in name at least, between those with a connection to "animals known to have existed" and "mythological or spiritual beings" - e.g. those identifying as draconic or mermaids tend to use the term "otherkin" rather than "therian", even if they are also people who have an association with furry fandom. There has been some research aimed towards distinguishing these overlapping groups, which I summarized a while ago at Mixed-venue survey delineates furries, therians, otherkin and Survey suggests furries 'think differently', but aren't crazy GreenReaper (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Keep. The references in the article and presented in this debate adequately show notability, by indepth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is no need to merge to the suggested target, they are overlapping but both are notable. It is wholly irrelevant whether otherkin are "real", we document all kinds of culture and interests. The nominator wants some kind of biological/physiological validation, thoroughly missing the point of the article - it is not to assert that people are genuinely dragons or clouds or whatever, it is to document that they have apparently seriously made such claims and that this has been taken note of by others. Fences&Windows 18:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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.