Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Protocol

Dutch Protocol

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page seems to have been largely copied from the Dutch Wikipedia, where it was created by a user who was subsequently banned from Dutch, English, and finally Global Wikipedia for pushing FRINGE transphobic content.[1] As you might expect, this article has a lot of problems. First, it overlaps heavily with the puberty blockers article and effectively acts as a POVFORK. Second, it uses several primary sources and popular news articles rather than sticking to the highest quality sources available (medical reviews and medical guidelines). Many statements are uncited and UNDUE weight is given to a single source, the Cass Review. Finally, it violates MOS:MISGENDER. It is unclear whether English Wikipedia really needs an article specifically about the Dutch Protocol or whether this is adequately covered at puberty blocker. Regardless, due to the numerous problems in this article, it would be better to exercise WP:TNT in this case and start from scratch. Nosferattus (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I agree that this now-extensive article seems to have become a content fork of the puberty blockers article. I suggest very careful merging of any useful content from this into the main article, and for this to become a section redirect. Update: Having seen the activity regarding this elsewhere, I have changed my opinion to Delete for the many reasons given by other editors here. There may be an article to be written on the Dutch Protocol, but this isn't it, and I cannot see any way to get there from here without deleting this first. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I only just saw that you'd edited your comment - to clarify they are indeed the same editor. He primarily edited via IP, was forced to start using an account as a sanction on dutch wiki, then after his account was banned/blocked on a few platforms started using the IP again until it was subject to a range ban. I'd toss in some diffs but I'm on a train atm, the talk page has a link to an AE sanction that links to the dutch wiki cases.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

banned/blocked? Which is it? WP:BAN & WP:Block are two different policies.Tiny Particle (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puberty Blockers are just one (optional) stage in The Protocol: Therapy, Social transition, puberty supression, cross-sex hormones, Gender-affirming surgery. The recent NY Times podcast attests to the importance of this article. Tiny Particle (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the protocol in the article mentions nothing about therapy, social transition, or gender-affirming surgery. The Dutch Protocol is essentially just the use of puberty blockers prior to gender-affirming hormone therapy (with various levels of oversight). This can be adequately covered at puberty blockers, or if a dedicated article is really needed, a new one can be created from scratch. Nosferattus (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and~~ redirect as proposed by The Anome, article so focused on puberty blockers that making it cover the entire Dutch Protocol would be easier with the current iteration gone. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the information given by Licks-rocks this should be obliterated and not merged to avoid metastasis of improperly sourced content. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small update on this: I went back to check and the original author contributes only about 5 percent of the current page. Me and some other dutch editors have already been over this one. Most of the current page is (re-)written by an editor called cixous whom I would peg as at the very least not intentionally misleading.

@Flounder fillet tagging you because I figure it might change your vote. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome you too. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to still be a POVFORK sitting on an article name that could be put to better use. Dutch language references and content they support should be merged into Puberty blocker as the only worthwhile salvage from this, the page can then be redirected or deleted. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blow to kingdom come as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with someone trying to merge but be extremely wary about the sources. Based on my previous experience with the user who wrote this the sources used may not align with the content they purportedly support. They might not say what the article claims they say, or they might even directly contradict the article. I have no idea how much cleanup has been done on this particular one before or after it was translated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / TNT: Per nom/my notes at talk. I don't think there's any material here worth merging - most of it relies on primary sources we shouldn't use for MEDRS. I do think it should have it's own article, but it should be short, focused, and use the best RS - this iteration of it won't help with that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus @The Anome @Flounder fillet @Licks-rocks

Please see related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Steensma (which is also about Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, Annelou de Vries, and Henriette Delemarre-van de Waal) - content with issues from this article was copied into those.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, including removing all the material about what was/is done in various parts of the UK: not defining for the Dutch Protocol (and either omitting the material regarding Finland or rolling it into the discussion of how the protocol has evolved). And beefing up the non-primary, scholarly sources. (The article is also crying out for a copyedit, and Licks-rocks raises a concern about sources needing checking.) But the news sources cited for the section of the article that is actually about the Dutch Protocol demonstrate notability, and this is not a subtopic of puberty blocker. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my earlier close, reopening and relisting per request on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first to avoid bad content metastasizing. Then create a redirect-with-possibilities. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POVFORK per WP:TNT. If this is a notable topic, distinct from puberty blockers and Gender dysphoria in children to the point where it needs its own article, then somebody else can write a proper article about it later but this is not good in the meantime. It isn't even a helpful starting point for anybody trying to make a valid article on this topic. No objection to anybody creating a redirect after deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep after extensive rewriting. I thought it'd be worthwhile to add two cents, as I have written on the Dutch orginial of this article as well, per @Licks-rocks comments above (who was more than welcome to ping me here). As they pointed out, it was originally conceived by an editor who got permabanned from the Wikipedia project for his apocalyptic transphobia. I - along with many others - have made some attempts on the Dutch Wikipedia to achieve a higher level of neutrality, but obvious issues persist: primary sources (which were added primarily from my side to show that there is no Secret Trans Cabal that is transing them kids; contemporary Dutch politics was/is scary for trans people), undue weight to sources that I couldn't tackle (particularly the use of media sources that only report on criticism of the Dutch protocol), lack of decent sources in the history section (they exist both in English and Dutch), structural issues (which is largely inherited from the aformentioned banned user), and significant overlap with the article on puberty blockers (which, admittedly, was not that big of an issue on the Dutch wiki due to its appallingly small article on puberty blockers). Besides that, I'd like to note that this was my first major attempt to edit on Wikipedia, so for the sections I rewrote, there are obviously a lot of awkward phrases.
TLDR: this article was created by a highly ideological user who got banned from Wikipedia and suffered from various (though very patchy) attempts to get it into a slightly less amorphous shape. Therefore, it seems fair to delete and rewrite it or delete it and add to other articles if necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cixous (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]