Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Ess


 * 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. WP:SNOW; all the votes are in favor of keeping and the rationale is almost entirely WP:GREATWRONGS-based. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tri-Ess

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This "organization" is an individual whom is spreading misinformation about what a trans person is and encouraging cult-like and harmful practices. This individuals blog is full of racist comments and they believe a transgender person and a cross-dresser are one and the same a harmful view to be promoting. The "Pledge of Membership/Code of Conduct" on their website includes "When in public, a members presentation will be either 100% feminine or 100% masculine, no mixing of the two. This also would include the presence of facial hair when enfemme." meaning they are not willing to recognize nonbinary people http://www.triessmn.com/membership-pledge-code-of-conduct.html. The individual is a heterosexual male whos only part in the LGBT community is crossdressing. Their website is also not up to the standard of a real organization and sites no sources for the misinformation it provides on any of its 6 pages. It is also copywrite 2013. On the page "terminology" they wrongfully state : "The term "transgender" has become an umbrella term encompassing a wide variety of those who consider themselves to be one of the "gender variant". The term transgenderist was first coined by Virginia Prince, one of the co-founders of TriEss to differentiate somebody who wished to live their lives as the opposite gender, but has no desire to physically change their bodies.  It recognizes that "sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears".  " they again site no source for this claim and make several more incorrect statements about the history of terminology surrounding transgender people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogwizard420 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I can admit that the sourcing of this page is not great, but I also see it as a bit valuable and worthwhile, as it publishes "The Femme Mirror" (which is how I first heard of it) and other publications. I am worried that the comment by the OP provides no sources for their claims apart from one link to the tri-ess website, making me a bit skeptical of their claims. I would support making the article a re-direct to another page, if it comes down to it, but for now, I stand by a weak keep.Historyday01 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Week Keep per @Historyday01. I also want to add that I've come across this organization in my research of trans history often before so I know there are much better sources than used in the page. I'm surprised the article isn't more developed and frankly that the organization's still going, as I thought they'd fizzled out a while ago. The article needs serious work, no doubt there, so to leave for myself or whoever gets to it first: google news search (73 results) and google scholar search (264 results). I believe quite a few also contain criticism of their views/positions so those can be included as well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree, and it would be great to expand on the article with some more criticism. I really only heard of them tangentially, like you, during research on trans history. Historyday01 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Education,  and Social science. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 03:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - per others, clearly there are reliable sources on the topic. WP:ATD The void century (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure what the deletion rationale actually here.  The fact that the subject spreads misinformation, or says racist or transphobic things, is not a reason for deletion; Wikipedia writes articles on notable people and organisations regardless of whether or not we agree with their views.  The sourcing on the article looks dubious at first glance, but nobody actually seems to be arguing that the subject is not notable.  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep seems notable. Is discussed in a Dear Abby column, so it's not an unheard-of organization. The links given are not the best, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Total WP:NCORP fail. Brief mentions, etc., aren't enough. Levivich (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per newly-added sources. The SAGE Encyclopedia has a fully entry on it, about one page long, that's WP:SIRS. "Weak" because I'm not sure there's a second; the "Transgender Communities" chapter has about a paragraph on the organization. But the sources together have enough for a policy-compliant article, and it's not like a for-profit company, so keep. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per @TheTranarchist. There is enough notability, although the quality of the page certainly leaves a lot to be desired. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For all the keep !voters: can you give two examples of WP:NCORP sources about Tri-Ess? Because I see 0, and I don't think keep !voters simply asserting NCORP sources, without specifically pointing to them, is sufficient. The only source I've seen in this AFD is the Dear Abby column, and that's obviously not an RS nevermind GNG nevermind NCORP. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've gone ahead and updated the article significantly to use a bunch of WP:SIRS sources. Should be no issues keeping it now. Please feel free to take a look and revise if you feel it needs it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
 * Which two are WP:SIRS of Tri-Ess? Levivich (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Transgender Communities: Developing Identity Through Connection, and Virginia Prince: Transgender Pioneer to name 3. I added 5 sources total, removed some bad ones, and they provide a pretty good overview of the organization and its history at this point. If you still think there aren't enough I could always add more. Or you could. Anyone want to weigh in on if they think more sources are required? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I updated my vote. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, when I get the chance I'll try and clean up the article more and see if there are some more sources that cover it. Additionally, I believe, but I'm not sure, that there are some WP:SIRS and WP:RS on the Foundation for Personality Expression, which I'll also work in. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding it. If it has an entry in the SAGE encyclopedia, I have no doubt there are other SIRS sources about it, and (as no doubt you know) gender studies papers from the 20th century may not be as easy to find online like other topics. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! And certainly lol, but with the Wikipedia Library and my college's library I usually manage TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:HEYMANN. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the above – this seems to be something which has a lot of passing coverage (which I know is not good enough for Wikipedia standards) and a few good sources already included in the article. Although I do agree that it needs a big overhaul as it stands, this is not grounds for deletion. --EggsAndCakey (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2023 (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.