Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you came here looking for the November 2012 AFD of this article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender (2nd nomination).

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender[edit]

Definition plus etymology plus examples of usage still equals a dictionary definition. It's also a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • DeleteTranswiki protologism. Plus all of that not a dictionary stuff. kotepho 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's significantly more than a dicdef. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a neologism and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Yes, the article has more than just a definition, but you can do that with any word if you choose. It's still just a word. And a neologism, besides. Carlo 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article admits the word is a neologism --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a neologism is not sufficient criteria for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is that whole WP:NOT a dictionary thing, along with WP:V and WP:RS that this article is lacking. kotepho 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it is a neologism, but one that is referenced by dozens of other articles (see what links to it), and one that has meaning within an small academic community. I don't see what is hurt by keeping it, and I can see many articles that would be hurt by not being linked to it. There is a fuzzy line between neologisms and legitimate accepted terms in new fields of study. It is not a black and white distinction. If anything, we have to draw that line closer to neologisms and allow some of the better examples. This is one such case. I never heard of this term until I saw it referenced somewhere else, and I learned something from reading the article. Is that a bad thing? -- Samuel Wantman 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "cisgender" in any academic database I searched. The best I could get was one hit on google scholar in an unpublished paper which cites no source for the term and admits that it is not in wide use. Very low number of google hits ~800 inculding wikipedia, ~650 w/o). Article has no real sources. kotepho 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the results for "cisgendered to be more interesting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With this great revelation I have come up with...zero results. Oops :( kotepho 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little used neologism (as per Kotepho's research). Proto||type 10:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neodicdef. `'mikka (t) 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. C'mon, WP is not supposed to use or introduce neologism, but what's wrong with describing a significant one? This is a very decent article, worked on my many people, complete with all kinds of references and interwiki links. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources for its significance. The sources in the article are eerly similar to each other to the point that they were all written by the same person or copyvios of each other. Oh, and they aren't WP:RS either. kotepho 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact alone that it is linked from several articles should make it clear that it is important to keep it. Also, I wonder what "academic databases" were searched that turned up no hits. -- AlexR 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PyschARTICLES, PyschINFO, PubMed, Duke University Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Contempory Women's Issues along with searches of periodical databases such as NewsBank's American Newspapers, Factiva, InfoTrac, SIRS, LexisNexis. kotepho 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful term that is actually reasonably widespread among this field; I can try to find more published uses, but a quick google revealed its use in this book (Medical Therapy and Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide For Health Care Providers, by R. Nick Gorton MD, Jamie Buth MD, Dean Spade JD), in addition to a reference found in google scholar (not sure if it's the same one referred to above, but this one has been published): Debating Trans Inclusion in the Feminist Movement: A Trans-Positive Analysis (by Eli R. Green), in: "Challenging Lesbian Norms: Intersex, Transgender, Intersectional, and Queer Perspectives", Edited by Angela Pattatucci-Aragón, PhD Director, Center for Evaluation and Sociomedical Research, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan. Perhaps those keen on deleting pages that define specialised terms and lack references can turn their attention to Category:Cooking techniques — none of these terms (e.g. Sautéing, basting) have cited references from academic publications as far as I can tell. ntennis 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think basting is a neologism... nevermind. That is the same paper from google scholar though, I was incorrect that it was not published (the version I read stated it was yet to be published). The Journal of Lesbian Studies is at least described as peer-revied by others. The book seems to be unpublished as far as I can tell. It is a book that is released under GFDL and googling for the ISBN comes up nothing. This is still a far way from demostrating that it has significant use. I'm changing my vote to Transwiki though. kotepho 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are hard to please :P I will have a look for other published sources from the real world of actual paper and ink. In the meantime, the use of the term and its meaning is easily verifiable online. And no, I don't think basting is a neologism. What gave you that idea? ntennis 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant, used, probably passes WP:KIT. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:42
  • Keep. Dysprosia 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain —undecided. —Ashley Y 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, seems to exist but doesn't seem to have any reliable sources. Stifle 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per ntennis. soggyr 13:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful in transdiscussions, so it's useful to have this entry. Steve Harris. 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and then Delete. WP:WINAD applies here: the term has an important usage in transgender discussions, but it belongs in a dictionary rather than in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    oops! Forgot to sign my vote yesterday evening: appropriate signature now added. --BrownHairedGirl 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this different than the pedant article? WP:WINAD should either apply to both articles, or neither. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is different in several ways: a) pedant has a wiktionary entry; b) pedant fits WP:V and WP:RS. Even so, I would consider the case for keeping pedant to be marginal, but Cisgender fits none of those criteria. --BrownHairedGirl 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. neologism without reputable sources yet. Mukadderat 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A term and concept in development. Cisgender was referred to at the recent (2006) ILGA World Transgender pre-conference. Its usefulness is still being explored, one thing for certain it has far more possibility of theoretical usage than 'RG" (real girl) and bio-boy (STW, 02-04-06)--68.203.186.198 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "usefulness still being explored" seems to me to be the strongest case yet made for this article's deletion. Personally, I think that it is a useful term, but that's not the issue here — it's more relevant to note kotepho's failure to find usage of it in a search of academic databases. Until there is some wider consensus on its usefulness and usage, this term does not fit on wikipedia: see WP:V or WP:RS, let alone WP:WINAD.
      I fear that some contributors to this discussion appear to be applying inappropriate criteria, by asking whether the term is useful to them personally rather than whether it fits wikipedia's criteria. --BrownHairedGirl 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's more than simply a word, it is a concept that is steadily accepted in the transgendered as well as the GLB community, much like the term "genderqueer". -CapitolAnarchy 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no good reason for deleting it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Query Could one of you keepers please explain how this passes WP:WINAD? kotepho 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the top of the WINAD page: "Nearly everyone here agrees that in general, stub articles are to be encouraged, provided they meet certain criteria. There are likewise some differences of opinion as to whether just definitions are acceptable for beginning an article. If you want to make everybody happy, add a little encyclopedic information of some sort —don't just give the meanings of the word." It seems to me that this article already has encyclopedic information in talking about the social and political context in which the word emerged, who uses it and why. It would fail to meet this policy if it only consisted of the lead section. The article could certainly be improved though; perhaps you would like to help? ntennis 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seems to be WP:OR given the lack of sources. kotepho 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it were WP:OR, it would have been created by the authors. We didn't create it, it's a part of our understanding. I'm sorry if the word isn't used often enoguh fo it to pass your filter, but it certainly passes WP:WINAD and WP:KIT. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read WP:OR? Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. It hasn't been published. It is original research. kotepho 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret this two ways. I've always read it to mean that "material added to articles authored by Wikipedia editors that has not been published in a book, journal or on the web already..." rather than "material from any source added to articles that has not been published in a book or journal..." If it is the second case, all of my work on List of largest suspension bridges is original research because all of my sources were from the web. It is, as far as I know more up to date than anything to be found on paper. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my interpretatoin as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting back, I couldn't find any other published uses of the word. i guess it is mainly confined to less formal forums like personal websites and discussion lists. ntennis 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cisgender&oldid=1137716492"