Deletion of Transracial identity

Comment: Arguably a hoax, and if it's not, then it's a matter of extremely marginal identification. Anecdotally, false reporting to troll transgender people produces the most coverage for this term, followed by coverage of apparent frauds like Dolezal, with any genuine cases being in vanishingly tiny numbers. So I argue an article is  emphasis on the term
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: insufficient coverage in reliable sources, fails  and EO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NEO)

Comment: This might be a thing one day, but not right now. We can't build an article about a neologism based on Rachel Dolezal (which is pretty much what the article is). The rest is just |OR padding
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: relevant info into passing (racial identity). I believe there is a distinct concept here but a little explored one which |may or rystalball|May not come to the point where it deserves its own article but not yet
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:C)

Comment: appears to be closely tied to Rachel Dolezal, who already has an article and doesn't need another one, and therefore has problems with sensationalism and recentism as well as . If it's still something people think is real in six months time maybe give it another shot then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The article uses reliable sources and meets the requirements of otability. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I don't know whether it is a hoax or not, but the article is an |original synthesis and perhaps more importantly, it is a duplicate of our article Passing (sociology) and uses a perfectly good word ("transracial") to mean something different from what it has historically meant.  (See this article's talk page where I discuss "transracial adoption" and "transracial identification - which has nothing to do with changing one's gender identity.) (By the way, I take it there are other articles about this new meaning of "transracial" that are also up for AfD; wherever they are, this comment counts for all of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I agree that it should be deleted per  at this point, as there seems to be consensus that it is a neologism or hoax, and that the article is  and  based on the actions of one person (who has her own article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:SYN||WP:OR)

Comment: for |neologism and ecentism|recentism issues. This isn't an outright hoax, but it doesn't yet seem to be a notable concept - it's an article based off one temporary news story about one individual. I thought about proposing a merge to Passing (racial identity), but they're not the same thing - that article's about people from one racial group who are able to live as and be accepted as another, while this is about the psychological condition of a person believing they are a different race to what they are. That's a far less common phenomenon, and it would seem not yet a notable one, though it could become notable in future
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:R)

Comment: A neologism, exclusively related to Rachel Dolezal. Despite attempts to pad the article with |synthetic connections to reliably-sourced yet unrelated concepts discussed by academics, there is no actual concept called "transracial identity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Article is supported by eight , including two scholarly journals, that cite expert and academic commentary and studies on the controversial concept of transracial identity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: currently article is completely unjustified per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per Hamimoon-- a combination of a non-notable neologism with heavy use of  to combine sources to apparently support it. In the event that this actually becomes a mainstream term, we can always re-create the article later. There now seems to be such a string consensus for deletion that I'd go as far as suggesting a '''speedy delete''' for this now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: A non-notable neologism. Fails , and is based in  and junk sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:OR)

Comment: per . This is both a hoax (currently promoted  by 4chan) to ridicule Dolezal and/or transgendered people by making a false analogy between transgender and a seemingly bizarre case involving one woman, and a fork of the many, many other articles dealing with the Dolezal case, passing (racial identity) and related concepts. There is no real concept called "transracial identity", no people who identify themselves as such, no medical condition, no organizations advocating this supposed identity etc. Everything supposedly covered by the concept is already covered in passing (racial identity). Note that this is also the ''third'' "transracial" article subject to an ongoing AfD and suspected of being a hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: no redirect) - A common prefix + racial identity can mean many different things. What we would need are reliable sources which show that this is (a) a well defined subject, (b) notable (), and (c) distinct from other topics we already cover. I don't see that we anything close to sufficient sources to do that. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The definition of transracial this article uses actually goes back at least a couple of decades. It has often been used by TERFs and has been used almost exclusively to mock and deride transgender people. There are few if any reliable secondary sources on this definition. I can reference plenty of examples of this usage but that would be . A lot of this article quotes academics talking to reporters in very brief context-less quotes, but none that I know of have published on the transracial identity. I've checked Ann Morning but not the others. Most of this article as it stands now is original research or very close to it and synthesis. At this stage it fails  and I don't think there is enough written about the term yet to write a reliable article about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NEO)

Comment: per .  No prejudice toward recreation when legitimate scholarly sources exist outside of this media frenzy.--v/r
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Article meets    and it is supported by numerous .  Subjects with much less  abound in Wikipedia and there is no reason to censor out this subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: per .  The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to be on the cutting edge of terminology, but rather to be a reflection and summarization of the common terms and topics.  This currently has no scientific basis, and time will tell us if there really is one.  Having many news organizations use the term is insufficient to support the article, as it only demonstrates that it is the buzz word of the day, due to the current event with the NAACP.  This doesn't establish the validity of the term nor demonstrate that such a thing as "Transracial identity" even exists.  Redirecting is also inappropriate as it would lend credibility where it hasn't been earned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)