Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynoid


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Gynoid
This is a case of over-categorisation, non-notability, or both. As far as I can tell, the following is true about the word "gynoid." 1. No prominent science fiction author, living or dead, has ever used the word "gynoid" in their fiction. 2. It has never been used in any well-known science fiction TV show or film. 3. It has never been used by anyone who actually builds robots (such as NASA engineers, for example), and they probably wouldn't know what you were talking about if you used the word in a sentence when talking to them. 4. In particular, it has never been used by anyone who builds female androids, which this article claims is called a "gynoid." Beside that, the entire article reads somewhat like a college literature essay. I don't say that as a criticism, it's quite good as far as that goes, but it's not an encyclopedia article. All the references are to obscure academic papers, mostly on literary theory.Callivert (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just heard 'gynoid' on a French TV show, "Un Monde de Bulles" -- admittedly in French, but they had a piece on a gallery show in Paris on female robots and "gynoid" was used as a reference to Japanese usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.129.240 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC) About those direct references. None of the BBC or Popular Science references on the article use the word "gynoid", instead they talk about female androids or female robots as the subject matter. So I could live with a rename. However, a rename doesn't solve the other problems: the article reads like a literary theory essay, which fails the suitability criterion.
 * Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYN, and having a title that is a nonnotable neologism. the only use i am aware of is in the Hajime Sorayama book of this name. any sourced content can be added to robot or android. well, here is another ref,, showing word origin. nice, and gwyneth jones is somewhat notable (good writer), but not particularly notable. i can understand the structure of the word, as android uses a masculine prefix. perhaps a brief mention of this alternate term there is enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and rename There are multiple notable sources including BBC and popular science that have made direct references to the gynoid fad and unambiguously distinguishes the notability of female android and their signficance to pop culture. This article passes WP:NOTE and its deleting seems to be borderline WP:OSTRICH. However Gynoid does not seem to be the primary name for this subject. Possible rename to female android. Valoem   talk  15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The citation for Gwyneth Jones, who coined the term is provided. Particualrly, it is exploited in Hajime Sorayama's artwork, there is also a medical usage. Brand[t] 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a lot that seems very wrong with the article. "The term gynoid was created by Gwyneth Jones in her 1985 novel" - that essential fact should be in the very first sentence, instead it is buried inside the article. I fear it is buried there because the article has a lot of OR. The article seems to be trying to retrospectively apply the term "gynode" to objects, stories, circumstances, concepts, ect., that were around long before the term was coined. That does not make the article invalid if a large number of legitimate sources have been attempting that retrospective applying. However, from the article, it is very hard to tell what legitimate sources are doing the retrospective applying, and how much of the retrospective applying is actually being done by Wikipedia editors. The number of, and the status of, the sources are the key to deciding whether there is a legitimate article here to keep. If the real number of sources are very small then the term would be non-notable. As has been pointed out, some references cited in the article do not actually use the word "gynoid", instead they talk about female androids or female robots. And the article does read like an essay. Meowy 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that strictly speaking, the word android means "man-like", not "human-like" and is overused. Gynoid balances that, being applicable to feminine machines. Brand[t] 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the origins of the word might make it appear that way, but "android" has a pretty clear meaning today. In widespread useage it means a human-like robot of either gender. 122.148.134.81 (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * brandmeister, are you saying the article deserves to stay because it provides the proper gender balance for discussing articificial humans? if you can't show references that mention this idea, this is pure OR, which is the whole problem with this article. As a PC person in general, might agree with you, but its not our call to try to shape the language.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's just an observation. The article deserves to stay because the word could be also found in related publications. But any action other than deletion nomination is plausible. Brand[t] 21:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If necessary rename to Fembot as that is the more commonly used term, but there is certainly enough verifiable info here for an article. Maybe it needs to be improved, but the concept is sound, there are plenty of references out there. Treating conceptually female robots  differently from male robots is a valid concept. The sex roles introduce enough new material for a separate article.  Riverpa (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * fembot is a humorous term. Android is quite obviously the common term for artificial human. right or wrong, we need to document actual usage. Oh, and by the way, until we can provide androids with reproductive functionality, any that we finally create will be as asexual as a toaster. simulated sexual characteristics dont make an object female or male.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. While "female android" is more common and technically correct ("man", while usually refering to a male, can also be used as a gender neutral term for human), "gynoid" is the more accurate term, and I don't believe a page move is needed. As for notability, the term has been used by Gwyneth Jones and Richard Calder. While neither author is exeptionally prominent, both are at least notable. For what it's worth (i.e. nothing) I use the term "Gynoid" fairly often in robotics related discussions or anytime Japan comes up. Angrysockhop  ( talk to me ) 22:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Fembot. Gynoid has not gained the same popular recognition as the term Fembot. Gobonobo  T C 10:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment ok, i can see a rationale for having an article on this term, but i really must insist that if a source is talking about female robots, female androids, fembots, etc, and doesnt explicitly use the term gynoid, its not a valid source for THIS article. this article should be only about the use of this term, unless and until this term is actually accepted by a wide range of sources as a valid term for referring to any and all feminine robot/androids. if we want an article pulling together all forms of female articifial humans, the title could be some variant of "artificial women", or "female robots". and rememember, robots DO exist, dolls DO, and androids DONT. im worried that this article exists because a lot of us fanboys are familiar with the term, which i admit is a really cool one. (im a fan of sorayama)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2009 (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.