Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binarism


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Binarism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Edit/Update: I hereby withdraw this deletion nomination. Most of the problems with the article that I initially brought up have since been resolved, and as a result, while a couple or so still remain, I do not feel that deletion of the article is necessitated any longer. For those interested in resolving the last of the issues, please head on over to the talk page for the article with me. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit/Update: I hereby withdraw this deletion nomination. Most of the problems with the article that I initially brought up have since been resolved, and as a result, while a couple or so still remain, I do not feel that deletion of the article is necessitated any longer. For those interested in resolving the last of the issues, please head on over to the talk page for the article with me. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Here are some of my problems with your reasons for deletion.
 * There is one sentence about discrimination in the gender binary article. That dosn't seem like "adequetely discussed" to me.
 * Second as said before all discrimination articles are somewhat opinionated however. I only stated that it was discrimination and did not make any implication over whether it was good or bad.
 * On "Binarism is a form of sexism and transphobia. Well what do you think it is. By its very definition its sexism and trasphobia.
 * I did not label the concept of the gender binary as inheritantly discriminatory anywhere in the article.
 * I'm more than willing to remove most of the sources and seek new sources.
 * Also I have no idea whether the attributes section of the article is a copvio. I didn't create that part. And it you shouldn't make accusations you can't justify anyway.
 * I would also like to a make an awareness at the top of the article that this article is about binarism not gender binarism which I feel is synoymous with gender binary.
 * -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Only got a couple minutes.   I put in the section that copyvio is being discussed on,   Most of those ARE direct quotes, I put them in with quote marks, and cited each to its source.     Somebody removed the quote marks.  I haven't yet checked to see if they changed the wording.  BTW I was just helping on the article, I'm no expert on the topic.  North8000 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Would a rename end this discussion for deletion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it would not. There are more issues with this article than just that. A rename to something like "non-binary discrimination" probably would help your case somewhat though. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Yes the article has weak sources, but the article could probably be improved the point where it'd meet the guidelines for inclusion. I don't have a whole lot of time (or knowledge or interest) in this topic, but I just think that this could be rectified through other means. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources available. The article is brand new is as still developing, including additions of those sources. There are links to them on the talk page. Insomesia (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of the topic matter at hand. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep? Those links on the talk page have lots of wp:notability-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave them only a quick look.  Someone else said that they cover "gender binarism" not "binarism" per this article. North8000 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge, the use of "Binarism" to describe discrimination against all persons included under the "transgender umbrella" except binary-identified transsexuals or intersex persons is a really peculiar neologism, and moreover conflicts with an established academic use of "Binarism" in post-structuralist analyses to refer to the tendency to categorize various social groups within binary groups (as I understand it, I'm not well-informed on its precise meaning in this context; only that there's a conflict here). The content on this subject is best included in the article Gender binary, where some mention of the fact that genderqueer persons experience more hostility than more socially-normative (but still variant) transgender identities is supported in the NCTE's "A Gender Not Listed Here" report. - bonze blayk (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this still. However, the majority wish to keep the article, and I think the terminology issue can be resolved without deletion, so I've withdrawn my deletion nomination. In any case, we should continue discussion on the terminology problem in the talk page for the binarism article. I'll be starting a section there on the matter shortly. Stay tuned. Edit: Started the section. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 11 September 2012 (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.