Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endosex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Sandstein 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endosex

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Endosex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism that fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEOLOGISM. This term lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, as required by GNG. Many of the sources in the article merely use the word, rather than discuss it (text justifying a term's notability by giving scattered examples of it being used is always a red flag in my view). Google Scholar (linked above) shows it has almost no usage (hence no notability) in the scholarly literature that we prefer per WP:SOURCETYPES (and many of the results for it are for an unrelated all-caps portmanteau of endocrinology and sexology). Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Tweaked. Crossroads -talk- 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page is new, but it currently cites 15 different sources in 4 different languages (English, French, German and Spanish), and English-language usages in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States. Those sources include the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. I have additional sources that I had considered duplicative, but I will add them. The term is more than 20 years old, with its origin identified, but usage appears to have increased, warranting inclusion. Trankuility (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: This is the article's creator. Many of these sources merely use the term rather than give it encyclopedic discussion, and the rest are WP:DICDEF. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of course entitled to comment on the proposed deletion of an article I created. Since first commenting, I have added another 10 citations. I think those give evidence of use across multiple different dimensions of language and region. I am glad to see that responses so far all recognize the need to keep the page or at least some material about the term in some form. Deletion is not warranted. Trankuility (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sources that are merely using the term do nothing to help establish significant coverage, or discussion, of the term from multiple secondary sources. The Perottet incident is WP:NOTNEWS stuff that doesn't really get it over the bar. Crossroads -talk- 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Intersex (perhaps in somewhat condensed form in the section on terminology), as the term is explicitly a response to the existence of that concept. BD2412 T 04:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the terminology warrants inclusion, but the Intersex page is large and a brief introduction pointing to a page just like Endosex is better practice according to WP:SPLIT. Trankuility (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not per WP:No page, which applies to even notable topics; this is not a distinct topic and isn't notable. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look up endosex or intersex in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Transwikify to Wiktionary. The current ngrams plot shows that endosex doesn't have enough data to plot. This coinage is highly premature to have as an article. It's the nature of journal papers and social media to have neologisms, which hopefully give their creators social cred or science props, but the majority of them sink beneath the waves. Every once in a while, someone coins a term that has some staying power. It's too early to know whether this is one of those. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support transwikification to Wiktionary. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trankuility above. It's even better-sourced now, and given its history in a medical context extends back over two decades, I can't really see it as a neologism - Alison ❤ 19:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep endosex is to sex like cisgender to gender; a crucial and important concept. Google Scholar lists lots of use examples. Trimton (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ITSIMPORTANT. I addressed Google Scholar above. The rarity of use and lack of in-depth analysis counts against the article. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I despise the attempts to refbomb this with "mentions", the term appears to have some academic currency. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Trankuility, or merge. This term / the concept under this name has been discussed for a couple decades in a modest number of sources, including some I don't see in the article yet like The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies and the section on "Doing endosex" in J. Edward Sumerau's America through Transgender Eyes (in contrast to e.g. Ipso gender or People who menstruate, which are very new / not often discussed, and which I supported merging). However, the discussions are often brief, not in-depth; it's borderline as far as whether it's notable enough for its own article vs better handled as a paragraph in Intersex. Even discarding things like the Proto-Indo-European etymology of sex and individual examples of use, though, a significant portion of the content that'd be due in an article about endosex will be removed as undue in an article about intersex (and this doesn't mean the content is bad: if you pasted the entire contents of Goy, which may be perfectly due in that article, into Jew, a lot of it would be trimmed as excessive/undue for that article). -sche (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are scattered sources, but in the aggregate they make for a satisfactory image of public use and discussion. This should do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
  • Keep It seems there are sufficient sources discussing it. Cinadon36 12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endosex&oldid=1016542066"