- 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. I recommend starting a merger discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Pangender
- Pangender ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View log)
This has recieved very little coverage and is not notable. WP:NEOLOGISM applies here also. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 12:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: While I think the article could be expanded, as it stands now a redirect or merge to an appropriate section of Genderqueer might be best. Though note that I have long-standing objections to the title of the Genderqueer article, which I think should be titled Non-binary gender, which makes me reluctant to cast a firm !vote on redirect/merge in this AfD. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've notified WikiProject LGBT Studies of this AfD. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Genderqueer. We currently have a separate Bigender article, but I favor merging all of these (including Trigender, which I've literally never heard anyone use either IRL or online) to genderqueer (or whatever title it might be changed to). Agender already redirects there, per apparent consensus, so precedent seems to show that WP is not currently interested in having separate articles for all the ways in which people might not identify with one gender over another. @ Apollo The Logician: would you be okay expanding your AFD to include these other articles? (and @ Funcrunch: would that screw with your !vote?) – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge sounds good. As for expanding the Afd I am fine either way. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 23:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 14. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment. The prefix "pan" means "all", as in the word pantheism. Since there are only two sexes, male and female, should not the correct word be bigender? I see that some one has used this term above. This does seem more appropriate English to me. Vorbee ( talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Gender is not sex. --
Pfhorrest (
talk) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- And even if it were, sex in humans is not as simple as being either male or female. To take one example, people who have a Y chromosome and androgen insensitivity syndrome may not develop male primary or secondary sex characteristics at all; their external genitalia may be indistinguishable from a chromosomal female. "Y Chromosome = Penis = Male" is a gross simplification of human biology. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Gender is not sex. --
Pfhorrest (
talk) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V ( talk) 19:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep/Comment Not necessarily opposed to merger as part of a general reorganization of nonbinary gender articles into one article, but opposed to the grounds stated in the proposal. Worth noting that the AFD from 11 years ago was also on the grounds of non-notability and it was found to be notable then, and AFAIK things generally don't cease to be notable over time. Also worth noting that the user proposing deletion apparently (per comments on article's talk page) conflates sex with gender and thinks there is some kind of "two-gender theory" that the article is biased against, so this smells a bit pointy. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- First of all the fact that some people 11 years thought it was notable has nothig to do with whether it is notable or not. Second of all I know the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is not. Third of all what on earth does that have to do with anything?
Poisoning the well much?
Apollo The Logician (
talk) 23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- What it has to do with is the possibility that your proposed deletion may not be in genuine good faith for the reasons you state, but because you disbelieve in the topic the article is about. --
Pfhorrest (
talk) 23:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- And how is that relevant to whether it should be deleted or merged or whatever? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 08:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- What it has to do with is the possibility that your proposed deletion may not be in genuine good faith for the reasons you state, but because you disbelieve in the topic the article is about. --
Pfhorrest (
talk) 23:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- First of all the fact that some people 11 years thought it was notable has nothig to do with whether it is notable or not. Second of all I know the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is not. Third of all what on earth does that have to do with anything?
Poisoning the well much?
Apollo The Logician (
talk) 23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Like Pfhorrest, I question the nominator's motive here. The impetus for the nomination seems to be IDLI with NEO as a justification. The term is not that obscure ( Google Books, Google Scholar). The nominator does not appear to have attempted WP:BEFORE. I won't oppose a merge, but there seems to be enough material to have a stand-alone article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - There needs to be a merge going on here because this is forking like crazy. Delete is not the right play. Bi-gender, Queer-gender, and Pan-gender are all shades of the same concept. Carrite ( talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I would say to keep it as a standalone, unless there's a better strategy to determine what would get merged into what. I agree that deletion would be the wrong move. Thought-provoking. Relevant. Meets GNG. ToddLara729 ( talk) 01:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per evergreenfir. Articles and books from those google searches enough to show a standalone article would pass GNG. Rab V ( talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per Roscelese - GretLomborg ( talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (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.