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 was   Keep as per WP:SNOW, on the merits. Concerns about the nomination (and nominator) don't factor, as the weight of consensus make the result clear - but such concerns may merit discussion elsewhere. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisgender
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been flagged for being biased, poorly written and controversial. Cisgender is a neologism NOT recgonised by the scientific community, nor by medicine.


 * Delete 1, G1 - Patent Nonsense. The term "Cisgender" claims to describe a real, medical, scientific condition, but is not recognised by the scientific community, nor by any doctor in the medical community. It is graduate level pseudoscience, and most literature that exists and which uses the term, excluding Wikipedia, is used in highly controversial activist forums. The article is patent nonsense as it claims to describe a diagnosable medical condition, which has neither been recognised, nor diagnosed by any real doctor in the world beyond the internet. 2. Neologism. While neologism itself is not sufficient criteria to delete an article, it really must be owned that WikiPedia is the only place on the internet (as the term is NOT recognised by the OED, for example, among many other English language reference dictionaries…) that is proporting that "Cisgender" is actually a word with a real meaning. A neologism like "Cisgender" should have a wider hearing, and some credence, usage and authority offline and in the common vernacular, before WikiPedia and its visibility are exploited to promote what is essentially a close minded, activist agenda. Fadedbetta (talk) 21:17, 5 November, 2012 (UTC)
 * — Fadedbetta (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Insomesia (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has multiple references from peer-reviewed journals. While to the best of my knowledge it is not recognized by medical science, it is recognized by other fields, as the article demonstrates. Furthermore, merely being controversial is not a criterion for deletion, nor is being neologism, as we have categories specifically for neologisms. If you consider it biased, then add criticism from reliable sources. Asarelah (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The term "Cisgender" does not describe a medical condition, and it has never been used in such a manner. It is a term used not in medicine, but in the social sciences, particularly in Gender Studies.  Fadedbetta commenced vandalizing this article here and has continued with this single-use account project for some time; frankly, I believe Fadedbetta should be banned for this abusive behavior. - bonze blayk (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Fadedbetta should be given another chance. I have spoken to him/her on my talk page and s/he seems to want to sincerely improve the Wiki, its just that s/he isn't sure how to do so. Take a look on my talk page and the correspondence between us. Asarelah (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The above nomination and comments were originally posted at Articles for deletion/Cisgender, which was the previous AFD for this article (from 2006). I have moved them here. The edit history is still at that page, however. I also corrected for format, and will fix incoming links momentarily. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it very hard to reconcile this edit and particularly this edit with an assumption of good faith on behalf of User:Fadedbetta. It is clear that ey have an axe to grind - both are edits are tantamount to vandalism.    Morwen (Talk) 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article seems well-conceived and referenced. Whether cisgender is a medical term of art or not is completely irrelevant. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly significant coverage and discussion from independent reliable secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, The "internet usage" section is kind of WP:ORy, but the rest of the article is well-backed by sources. The claim that the article was claiming this is a "medical [...] condition" is an outright falsehood; the article is about a concept in gender studies, and very clear on that.  Morwen (Talk) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject with plenty of reliable sources available. Insomesia (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This seems to be a legitimate, notable topic for an article, even if the content or the concept is disputed &mdash; in which case it could have tags asserting such, but it hardly qualifies for an AfD. I think User:Asarelah said it best, above:  "...merely being controversial is not a criterion for deletion". I'd favor keeping the current page intact, but at the very least, it should be merged into another article. &mdash;  VoxLuna   ☾  orbitland   08:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: After further reviewing the edits the OP made to this article, WP:AGF is difficult, if not impossible. It is disruptive at a bare minimum (and several admonishments have already been put on this user's talk page).  'Nuf said. &mdash;  VoxLuna   ☾  orbitland   08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Patent nonsense indeed - but not the article being considered. This POV-motivated, policy-irrelevant nomination is clearly not going to succeed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep, too many RS to be its notability even considered controvesial. Cavarrone (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I came across this term in a piece of academic writing, and looked it up. This wikipedia entry came up first, and gave me exactly what I needed to understand the term, it's origins, and sources for further reading. I'm astonished anyone would consider deleting it. It definitely is a term used by a group of academics studying a particular field of sociology. I don't believe the claim is made anywhere in the article that cisgender or cissexuality is anywhere described as a 'medical' term, and I don't see any reason why medics should be privileged over other academic fields (such as sociology) in the creation and definition of terms that are useful in the discussion of social phenomena. Main reason to keep: article is informative and useful and will help other people like me confronted with an unfamiliar term in use by leading academics in a particular field River sider ( talk ) 09:28, 9 November 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.