Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutrois (2nd nomination)
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 Delete. Lack of sources is not the same as unverifiability is just plain wrong. No sources does in-fact mean delete. We are building an encyclopedia here, not creating or defining new terms. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrois
AfDs for this article:
Non-notable neologism; only two sources - one of which doesn't mention the term, the other of which is not-reputable; recreation of deleted content; etc. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per non-notable WP:NEO. Suprised it wasn't speedy deleted when it was recreated. -Jahnx (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to genderqueer per this source, which is about as comprehensive an RS as I found. There's a lot of personal interpretation in these non-societally-sanctioned gender identities and we've already got a couple of good (well, better) articles like that one and third gender to cover the area. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- redirecting to genderqueer brings back the stigma of politicization for a group that don't need anymore bs. redirecting to third gender does not work as it is largely a cultural and historical term. Taineyah (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- also, what does "Just Add Hormones" have to do with redirecting the article?Taineyah (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is the ONLY result for the word "neutrois" on Google Books. It uses the term in a definition of transgendered: Most generally used as an umbrella term that encompasses a range of people .... (standard TG definition, feel out of place in wrong body, etc.) It can also refer to those who present as androgynous or do not define themselves by gender at all. In some cases, these people self-identify as "genderqueer", "genderless", or "neutrois". There are many other names that people use to define themselves. There are no relevant hits on Google Scholar or Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- also, what does "Just Add Hormones" have to do with redirecting the article?Taineyah (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- redirecting to genderqueer brings back the stigma of politicization for a group that don't need anymore bs. redirecting to third gender does not work as it is largely a cultural and historical term. Taineyah (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lack of sources is not the same as unverifiability. Wikipedia deletion policy states that if a page can be improved, to take that option rather than deletion. As for the non-reputable source, questionable sources may be used in articles about themselves. Finally, this article is still being built- see WP:INSPECTOR. I do realize I'm not a user of this site and my vote may not be counted, but I hope you'll at least allow me to voice my thoughts on this. 24.70.106.141 (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Mendori
-
- At present, attempts are being made to obtain a copy of a German book which is supposed to have further references. Unfortunately, we're being forced to obtain an electronic copy from the British Library as it is a rare book and difficult to find. If we can find it, then we should be able to use that book to find further sources.Taineyah (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly And that essentially proves that this is a non-notable neologism. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shifting the goalposts much? Uh, no. That essentially says "hey, there's a source that may be particularly useful," not "this is totally worthless, delete it fast." If you're going to moan about sources, you need to actually evaluate the sources when found, not assume that because someone's citing from a rare book, the classification is non-notable. I'd ask that a certain amount of time be given to obtain and cite the book. Scott (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Scouring the earth If a Wikipedia article existed for every term mentioned in a rare German book that is "supposed to have further references" there would be no notability guidelines at all. As it is, this is essentially unsourced material and the fact that it's virtually impossible to find even a reference to it shows that it is a neologism. And typing the word "uh" is not clever, Scott. Please don't use sarcastic jokes in the middle of the discussion while simultaneously trying to raise it. There is time being given; if you can't find it during this AfD discussion, then re-create the page with actual content and verifiable sources when you get it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's like a red herring factory Funny, I happen to know of the book in question and it's really not obscure. It's just old. If anything, the article should be renamed rather than deleted, if 'neutrois' hasn't entered the realm of 'notable.'
- Scouring the earth If a Wikipedia article existed for every term mentioned in a rare German book that is "supposed to have further references" there would be no notability guidelines at all. As it is, this is essentially unsourced material and the fact that it's virtually impossible to find even a reference to it shows that it is a neologism. And typing the word "uh" is not clever, Scott. Please don't use sarcastic jokes in the middle of the discussion while simultaneously trying to raise it. There is time being given; if you can't find it during this AfD discussion, then re-create the page with actual content and verifiable sources when you get it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shifting the goalposts much? Uh, no. That essentially says "hey, there's a source that may be particularly useful," not "this is totally worthless, delete it fast." If you're going to moan about sources, you need to actually evaluate the sources when found, not assume that because someone's citing from a rare book, the classification is non-notable. I'd ask that a certain amount of time be given to obtain and cite the book. Scott (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point exactly And that essentially proves that this is a non-notable neologism. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- At present, attempts are being made to obtain a copy of a German book which is supposed to have further references. Unfortunately, we're being forced to obtain an electronic copy from the British Library as it is a rare book and difficult to find. If we can find it, then we should be able to use that book to find further sources.Taineyah (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The word "uh" was used in response to the staggering absurdity of your remarks, not as some misguided attempt at a witticism. Had I been attempting sarcasm, I would have voiced my support for your statement. Please avoid attempting to psychoanalyze me from your desk chair, bed, workplace, school, or wherever you're actually accessing the tubes from. I'm not here to be witty. I'm here to discuss and contribute to wiki pages.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sure, time will be given, provided we don't get more requests for insta-deletion. Granted, I'll recreate the page with something more verifiable whenever I have them, but it seems a waste. I'd suggest that this, along with other pages lacking significant citations, should be labeled as being potentially spurious or lacking sufficient citations and not simply deleted out of hand. Scott (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Staggering absurdity? Okay, clearly you're more interested in pontificating and mocking than having a civil discussion. My position is clear: this word is non-notable, the article has no verifiable and reliable sources, and it should be deleted. Please avoid attempting to psychoanalyze me from your desk chair, bed, workplace, school, or wherever you're actually accessing the tubes from. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Speedy delete as re-created deleted material and so tagged. If there is any new evidence that it is notable this can be thrashed out at a deletion review. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Facepalm.jpg I'm removing the tag on the article, since this bears absolutely no resemblance to the deleted article. We should deal with it on its own merits, or lack of them. Scott (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Tough call, but it is our burden to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting. Article will improve in time. Not that it's an essential criteria, but AltaVista found 4,640 results - House of Scandal (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Gender identity disorder. It looks like the term is getting some use, but does not meet standards of notability. Aleta Sing 05:36, 24 March 2008 (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.
