Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childhood gender nonconformity


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Childhood gender nonconformity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article Gender nonconformity already exists, and there is nothing to suggest that childhood gender nonconformity is notable as a unique subject. This article is certainly longer, and would appear to have more content, but considering the lack of citations, NPOV problems, lack of coherence, etc., a merge would be impractical, as there is little content to merge that meets Wikipedia's content standards. Calgary (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is decently written, and the subject itself has been mentioned in much more notable media than it's parent topic... why, I'm not sure, but almost every tv special/web article I've read regarding the subject has been almost exclusively on children. Although the article could be improved greatly, I believe it still belongs on Wikipedia. --khfan93 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  04:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article needs work, but it's a worthwhile topic, and there's content there to work with. There's been enough discussion specifically about gender-variant children (mostly about what to do with them) that it's worth keeping separate from the main article gender variance. --Alynna (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - two academic references with the subject matter in the title is enough for any concept to meet WP:GNG. Here are some more sources, just so that notability isn't doubted:, , , , , , . Huge amount of academic coverage, and this nomination seems to be based solely on WP:RUBBISH. I've flagged the article for rescue, and I'll do some clean-up myself. Claritas § 10:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and rescue per Claritas. This topic is distict from the major article, and has been the subject of films, books, and scholarship. The article needs fixing, but is a good start. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   gab 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Claritas in seeking assistance with its improvement. 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG.   Snotty Wong   gab 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on Google news search at the top of the AFD and you see 16 results, all talking about this. [[User:Dream Focus |  D r e a m Focus] 23:11, 12 July 2010 (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.