Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender

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 Merge to Genderqueer. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agender[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not in the habit of creating WP:AfDs; in fact, in my several years of editing Wikipedia, this is the first WP:AfD I've started. But I've started it because, with Ajfweb's insistence on creating the Agender article, my patience for all the unnecessary genderqueer articles -- meaning the unnecessary WP:Spinouts -- has run out. With the Agender article, what we have is a non-WP:Notable or barely WP:Notable topic/a WP:Neologism/an unneeded WP:Content fork. This is partly why the Agender redirect was redirected to the Neutrois‎ article; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18#Agender. As seen in that discussion, there was the argument that agender is essentially the same thing as neutrois‎, and the argument that they are not the same thing. Whether they are or are not the same thing, we do not need two separate articles on these matters. Per WP:Content fork, we should not have articles about the same thing and should strive to keep topics that are pretty much the same thing (if not exactly the same thing) in one article, instead of causing our readers to go to more than one Wikipedia article for that material. When I explained to Ajfweb, in the Agender edit history, why the Agender article keeps getting deleted or redirected, and asked whether I should take this matter to WP:AfD, Ajfweb stated, "Agender is only as unnotable as neutrois. Take this to AfD if you like. The redirect is tagged as possible for expansion." Well, I don't support the Neutrois article existing either, as I essentially told an IP at the Agender talk page when commenting on Draft:Agender (the draft that the aforementioned IP created). I've been clear, as seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal, that non-WP:Notable genderqueer topics, or ones that are WP:Notable but cannot be expanded much beyond a WP:Stub, should be covered at the Genderqueer article, which is the umbrella term article for all of these aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't have much time immediately, but my perspective is that Neutrois doesn't adequately cover the concept of Agender. As it exists, or at least existed prior to my minor edits, agender is included as merely a synonym, rather than mentioning any real distinction. While there is some overlap between the two (some neutrois people identify as agender and vice-versa), from what I can see, they are distinct: Neutrois is neither gender or a neuter gender, while Agender is a lack of a gender. But I am no expert on the subject, you'd really need to find someone who is. I might be happy if Neutrois became, say, "Neutrois and Agender" and covered both concepts (and their overlap) in two different sections of one article. That would be better than treating Agender as merely a synonym of Neutrois. —ajf (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the situation was worse: The article just mentioned the word "agender" without explanation, not even as a synonym. —ajf (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Agender and neutrois or Neutrois and agender could work. But my concern is still what I stated above about all these WP:Spinouts. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this Nymag.com source after clicking on the first "Find sources" link above ("Agender"), it essentially notes agender and neutrois as the same thing. Sources doing these things, defining these terms in ways that don't distinguish them or distinguish them well, is why these topics don't deserve separate articles and is why the Genderqueer article currently lists all this together: Without a gender (nongendered, genderless, agender; neutrois). Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most sources treat agender/neutrois/identifying with no gender as a subset of genderqueer, although a few seem to indicate that nonbinary/genderqueer = identifying with more than one gender and is separate from agender. Certainly there's no need to have multiple articles on identifying with no gender, so agender, neutrois, etc. should be merged under whatever title is seen as appropriate; I would support merging both to Genderqueer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The aforementioned IP added to the article, including wording it in a way that the IP personally agrees with, even though sources disagree with one another on how to define agender. Also, I alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also alerted editors of the Genderqueer talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reluctant to weigh in as I identify as agender and I do feel that identity is different from neutrois, but I honestly don't have reliable sources to back that up. I do think a merge of both agender and neutrois to genderqueer or another article on nonbinary gender identities would be a good idea, until such time as there are more reliable sources available to make distinctions between these terms. Funcrunch (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is H.A. Burnham ? What is the etymology of "neutrois" word? It seems to have something with "neutrality". Neutral what? Gender? Then synonims of agender are enough. Or maybe also "ungendered", sexless body - neutral body, to be not assigned (by gendering, sexist society) to any gender by visible sex traits. Maybe this will solve the problem as well as those conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (talk • contribs)

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.