Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus. PeaceNT 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigender

Bigender (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have never heard of this term, it seems to be a neologism. Certainly it does not appear to be a notable term - I can find no reliable sources through a Google search. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral. There certainly are reliable sources (Bowling State University, Trans-Alliance Society for two) that are discussing bigenderism, but I'm not sure that it's notable enough. Edited for formatting. Change vote to Keep per further research by other users. --Charlene 07:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator of this article claims to have done a Google search and found no “reliable sources”. Clearly the person did not search very hard. I spent 15 minutes doing a search and turned up quite a few notable mentions of the term. This word (be used as defined) had appeared in the scholarly journal Cultural Critique and Curve Magazine. It appears in literature from The Minnesota Medical Association and The Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (links to pdf). It also appears in this article on Project Muse. This set of notes from Umass about a work-in-progress, notes the term. And a quick review of a google search limited to “.edu” websites (link here) reveals a number of other incidences.
It is also appears (due to materials on sites for transgender individuals and livejournals) that is a preferred term of self-reference for growing number of people. It may be the case that is is not a common term, but it certainly appears to be a notable one. I hadn't heard of the term before I came across this AfD. I will grant the article need citations and could use some work in general, but the editing process can take care of that. Fixer1234 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I checked the first two pages of Google, which in my experience usually proves an article's notability nine times of ten. Kindly assume good faith. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I didn't mean to insult. Btw, the links above are now fixed. Best Fixer1234 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to include this link, which is referenced from the Wikipeida article, transgender. Fixer1234 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not for nothing, but a Google Scholar search is often more helpful. Regular Google will put Urban Dictionary above The Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association every time. —Celithemis 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Fixer1234. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I admit that I learned something from reading it. My first thought on seeing the word bigender was that it had to do with Gulliver's Travels and the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu. If kept, perhaps that should be disambiguated here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - no no no no no. I was just thinking about this today. We get a word made up a few years ago, and it barely makes its way into a few nominal, though notable, publications with a clear agenda in the same subject (e.g., the Trans-Alliance Society). It is actually a disservice to our readers to treat such a nominal term as if it were worthy of an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Part Deux (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment Every word in the English language was created in exactly this way - someone made it up, then it was used by notable individuals and organizations. If notable organizations are using this word, and if the concept behind the word is encyclopedic (as I feel this is, given the other references found), an article on it will improve Wikipedia, especially in a case where no other word fits. This isn't the equivalent of transgender or transsexual - it's a different matter that likely didn't have a word for it before because people were likely too afraid to talk about it earlier. --Charlene 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, a few trivial mentiosn in a few scholarly journals is trivial. This is completely my interpretation of WP:NEO, granted, but I don't believe that a word deserves a mention in an encyclopedia until more than a few people, and not people with an interest of some sort in the issue (e.g., Gay and Lesbian Medical Association The International Journal of Transgenderism, etc.) mention it. Part Deux 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my post (I'm fixer1234) in which two professional organizations that are not specifically LGBT made use of the term. *Also, I want to argue firmly that a term is not necessarily non-notable just because interest in that term (and reference to that term) is limited to a specific community or field of study. *As to your original argument for deletion, I must echo the sentiments of the user Charlene. New words or new uses of existing words enter the language all time. Pendants may decry this as defiling the language, and other (informed) parties might argue against the need for a new term or the correctness of a new term. But, so long as there are reputable individuals using the term, it is legitimate. *As I noted in my first post, I hadn't heard this term (used this way) before, but just a little bit of research clearly showed this term wasn't just some Wikipedia editor's neologism. "Bigender" may be a new term and use of it may limited, but it is used by individuals both in and out of the LGBT community. Those outside of the LGBT using it include medical professionals and social workers. Those in the community include academics. *Given these facts, I must reassert that this article should be kept. Fixer1234 21:00, 18 April 2007 (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.