Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identity tourism


 * 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 no consensus. But there seems to be consensus that cleanup is needed if this is to stick around for much longer.  Sandstein  20:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Identity tourism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTESSAY, the article talks at length about other peoples work, but doesn't seem to describe the concept at all, other than some vague waffle about "intersection". AtlasDuane (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ARTN: I agree that the writing style is confusing (although "vague waffle" is unfortunately common in social science topics, even in published academic work). But there are a lot of published sources used in the article, and "talking about other people's work" is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. (See WP:OR.) ARTN says that writing style doesn't impact notability -- if this is a notable subject, then it should be kept and improved. I think that the sources given in the article demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ARTN only applies if you supply sources that confirm notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the term "identity tourism" is not widely used. Not notable subject. Seems like an advertisement for this coined term. It's full of coatrack and irrelevant subjects.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs a rewrite to sound less like a collage of sociology department websites, but there's a topic here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak merge. Currently the article is talking about at least two totally separate topics and should be split, even if it is kept. I'm not convinced that the sources on the former justify an article as opposed to discussion in a broader article on tourism. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO Seems to be an academic theory at this point by sociology majors who want to write about gaming for class. In this NPR article on avatars, it's referenced once: "Namakura says that choosing a character outside of your own identity can risk turning into what she calls 'identity tourism.'" There is a big difference between "known as" and "what he/she calls." To be notable, something has to be written about repeatedly over time in RS and this has not. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. —Мандичка<b style="color: #6600cc;">YO</b> 😜 06:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between "known as" and "what he/she calls." True, but it can be both. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This does not look like a topic that warrants a full article. Dorama285 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. AFD is not cleanup. A cursory WP:BEFORE search in my university's online catalogue shows a plethora of peer reviewed academic journal articles and books on this topic. There's clearly not a lack of sourcing or notability issue here. If a content fork needs to happen that is an editorial issue that should be solved outside of the AFD process. Likewise any issues in the writing style or content organization should be solved through tags and discussion on the article's talk page and not here at AFD. WP:NEO doesn't apply here because at this point the amount of academic published content on this topic is extensive. My university library contains 460 peer reviewed journal articles on this topic. 4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is a small sampling of peer reviewed sources where identity tourism is the main subject:
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:4meter4's sources clearly document that there is a notable subject buried in the article, but it is still unclear to me after reading all the above comments that Identity tourism is the best term for the first part of the article, a point that is not just as matter of 'cleanup'. I share User:Roscolese's concern that the second part of the article is not clearly about the same subject as the first; the sentence that introduces the second part, 'The emergence of the internet as a venue of identity expression is also relevant to the theme of tourism and identity', sounds like original research to me in the absence of a source. The article has been relisted twice now: we are only going to be able to solve the issue of the final home of this content with more than the work that 4m4 has carried out, which is not something we should assume will be carried out at AfD. I think the best course of action is to close as no consensus and flag the unsatisfactory state of the article with appropriate quality warnings, including . &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG pass based on the source by Pitchford cited in the footnotes plus one cited above: Howe, Alyssa Cymene (February 2001). Queer Pilgrimage: The San Francisco Homeland and Identity Tourism. Cultural Anthropology. 16(1). p. 35-61. We're there, GNG pass. Deficiencies of the article are deficiencies of the article. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.