Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folx (term)


 * 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. There's wide consensus here that the sources, while numerous, are not sufficiently reliable and/or providing significant coverage, to base an article on. If somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect, they can, but I won't include that in the consensus close. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Folx (term)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This neologism fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The 21 sources currently used are not sufficient. Analysing these we find: The article doesn't even represent these sources correctly. It states, In particular, LGBTQ communities of color have embraced the term "folx" to emphasize that the presence of a binary gender system in indigenous societies is a product of colonization and oppression of indigenous peoples. This is original research, since the sources cited for this use the term without any explanation why. It is also claimed, Most frequent usage of the term occurs in California. While believable, neither of the sources for this even mention California.
 * 1) Episcopal Church book that uses the term once.
 * 2) Wordpress blog.
 * 3) Book that does not mention the term whatsoever, used to compare "folx" to "Latinx".
 * 4) Podcast.
 * 5) Paywalled Boston Globe "Ideas" piece that, based on the title, appears to partially actually be about the term.
 * 6) Personal website of someone who claims to be "queer by choice".
 * 7) Word Spy, a site apparently dedicated to neologisms and run by a computer programmer.
 * 8) Urban Dictionary.
 * 9) Tumblr.
 * 10) An essay that uses the term once.
 * 11) A site for people to create their own classroom presentations that only uses the term, not explaining it.
 * 12) Linguistics professor's blog which really just links to the aforementioned Boston Globe piece.
 * 13) A paper which appears to only be about the term in a small part, and which anyway apparently found that only a small percentage of the people whom the term supposedly benefits had familiarity with it.
 * 14) Bachelor's thesis.
 * 15) A paywalled paper that seems likely to just use the term, not discuss it.
 * 16) Dissertation.
 * 17) Dissertation.
 * 18) Book that uses the term once.
 * 19) Same thesis as number 14.
 * 20) Bachelor's thesis.
 * 21) Book review that uses the term once.

Checking for any new significant coverage in reliable sources turned up only articles that use the term, but nothing that constitutes "reliable secondary sources [talking] about the term or concept" as required by WP:NEO. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Crossroads suggests, some of the cited sources seem to be use rather than analysis of the word qua word. But leaving those aside, there are still about half a dozen appropriate scholarly sources, satisfying WP:GNG, at least to my satisfaction. Completed dissertations, at least at the doctoral level, can be used as reliable sources when supported by other sources. Being behind a paywall or not available online has no bearing on sourcing. While the article may include original research or other problems, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. NB: I removed the blog that is #12 in nom's list above, and replaced it with a scholarly article by the professor in question. Like the blog, it also refers to the Boston Globe piece, but also includes much more analysis of the general issue. Cnilep (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now checked sources 15-17. #15 again only uses the term once with no explanation, stating, Collectively, we offer historical, theoretical, philosophical, literary, cultural, digital, and spiritual points of departure for waging war against systems of oppression threatening Black folx’ ability to survive, live, and thrive. #16 is just a master's thesis, so not a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP; has zero cites on Google Scholar; and though only the first ten pages are viewable, there is no indication the source discusses the term beyond simple use anyway. #17 is a doctoral dissertation that uses the word 14 times, but its only discussion about the word is simply, Folx is a gender inclusive word. “In some languages, ‘folks’ is a gendered noun, so using ‘folx’ is a way to include people of all genders, especially non-binary genders” (Because I Am Human, 2017). ("Because I Am Human, 2017" is a Wordpress blog.) This dissertation also has zero cites on Google Scholar. The new #12 is paywalled, but has the broad topic of "Transgender language reform", so it is unlikely to spend much time discussing "folx" specifically. The same applies to #13. So, your half a dozen appropriate scholarly sources are really just small portions of two papers, and a doctoral dissertation briefly referencing a blog. The Boston Globe piece may not even be all that independent of a source, as it is also about "folx" only partially and according to the article here, quotes Lal Zimman, who is the author of new #12. I'm still not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What I do see is a neologism that has little...usage in reliable sources; per WP:NEO such articles are commonly deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's the relevant Boston Globe content (the rest of the article is about other words like 'womxn'). Cheers, gnu 57 17:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

One recent "x" word is both broad and specific: "folx," which is defined by Word Spy lexicographer Paul McFedries as an umbrella term for people with a non-normative sexual orientation or identity. While this spelling has been around for nearly a century, the meaning similar to "Latinx" and "womxn" is a recent innovation. "Folx" is kind of brilliant. Even with the usual spelling, "folks" is an inclusive word, avoiding the gender associations of "guys," "dudes," and other male-associated words. That "x" retains the traditional pronunciation but opens the tent wider. Zimman praised this word for "suggesting solidarity" and representing "the everyday people." Society has a long way to go, but maybe someday we can all just be folx.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Based on gnu's finding of the Boston Globe article, I don't think we have enough to build an article around. If we are going to build an article about a neologism, WP:NEO says we should have more than just a dictionary definition and proof of use.  Perhaps a redirect to gender neutral language is appropriate. Rockphed (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading the article, it seems like the article contains about three definitions of this term in three paragraphs of text, each claiming that folx is a neutral term, but that it is more neutral for group X than it is for group Y. To me that indicates that the definition of this term is still in flux. Sumurai8 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is certainly longer than a typical dictionary entry, but that does not change the fact that at root, it is still discussing the meaning, usage, and etymology of a word.  It has long been established here that such material belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.  However, I would not support moving any material there given the dubiousness of the references.  Word Spy is alleged to claim the word has been around for "at least a century".  If that were true it would be found in the OED, but it isn't.  Sounds to me like a case of wishful folk etymology by non-lexicographers.  Very possibly, this is too recent a coining to meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion anyway. SpinningSpark 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wiktionary : folx. I don't think as of right now there are sufficient articles for an article about the article folx similar to latinx, womxn, Mx (title), etc., but a redirect to the existing Wiktionary entry would be beneficial to those looking for more information. I also want to just note that additional sources discussing the word come from Dictionary.com: folx, How The Letter “X” Creates More Gender-Neutral Language. Umimmak (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The term does seem to be used in these terms in a few peer reviewed journal articles:
 * 1) "Xemiyulu Manibusan Tapepechul Uplifting Two-Spirits", Cultural Survival Quarterly, Jun 2018, Vol.42(2), pp.10-11
 * 2) "Rethinking disability: The need to rethink representation.", Procter, Jenna - Lee, African Journal of Disability, Annual, 2018, Vol.7(5)
 * 3) "Introduction by the Guest Editors", Haas, Angela ; Rhodes, Jackie ; Devoss, Dànielle Nicole, Computers and Composition, March 2019, Vol.51, pp.1-3
 * However, an actual use of the term as a topic unto itself isn't discussed in these sources or the others presented elsewhere in this discussion, but just used in a consistent context with the text in the article. Ultimately, while it may be true, it isn't verifiably true by wikipedia's standards of inclusion. In other words, until multiple independent publications actually writes about it directly we can't cover it. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2019 (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.