Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cogender

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/rename. There is a consensus here that the content on this page does not require a standalone article, but should be moved elsewhere. There isn't consensus as to where it should be moved; whether to a single article with a different title, to various articles on ethnic groups which could cover the same information, or all of the above. This matter may be sorted out through talk page discussion, and the page turned into a redirect or nominated for WP:CSD#G6 once the merger has been performed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cogender#Merge -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cogender

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

The term is rarely used, ill-defined, overlaps with the term "third gender", and the usages seem to be ad hoc and unrelated to each other. CommuniqueNew2 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears this term is used in anthropological context to refer to specific indigenous societies. In this regard, it seems closer to Two-spirit which is a specifically North American term. I found two additional peer reviewed books or articles, and added them. --Theredproject (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Far and away the most common usage of the word is to refer to facilities, organizations, events, etc. which involve both sexes where one might expect only one, e.g., my first GScholar hit was for "cogender" facilities, i.e., prisons/jails presumably housing both sexes. What I can quickly see of the references here is the same: it means male and female together, whatever the context. In other words, it's an adjective, not a noun. Therefore the context makes obvious that a co-gendered deity encompasses both the male and the female. There's no co-gender; there are only things that are co-gender, and I don't see how we get an article on that. At any rate, what we don't get is this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. Mangoe is certainly correct about the most common usages of the word. But, that just means you need to dig a little deeper to find useful sources, because the other uses clutter up the search results.

I know wikis are not WP:RS, but Rational Wiki at least can serve as a jumping-off point for further research. I haven't yet figured out if The Era of the Co-Gendered Human is a WP:RS or not.

Somewhat more confusingly, I'm not sure what the objection is in this AfD. I don't think anybody doubts that there are people of non-binary gender. Are we just arguing about whether the word co-gender is a real term to refer to these people? ~~At the very least, this should be redirected to Third gender (if a better target isn't located), per WP:ATD~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more digging and I'm just not finding anything that justifies this title. Maybe there's a germ of a non-binary gender roles in historical cultures article (and thus we should rename it to something like that title, but the specific term co-gender, used in this way, doesn't seem to be justified, as CyreJ points out below.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The problem here, essentially, is whether we are going to help someone co-opt a word that people have as a rule used for something else (and it a pretty obvious way, at that) to coin a neologism. My reading is that the attempt didn't "take", and that the usage of it to mean a sort of by-designation hermaphroditism hasn't caught on. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete A term having a second, far more common meaning doesn't in general mean we can't have a article about the minority use of the term. However, I agree that this one seems to be a neologism (for various historical and anthropological phenomena) which isn't sufficiently established. It's hard to tell if it's a common concept in the literature. An ideal source would not just use the term, but give a definition and discuss its usage. CyreJ (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - some info can go to Mapuche, some to Iban_people, in cultural sections, and maybe some into the various homosexuality articles, but otherwise I'm not seeing this term being worthy of its own article. No redirect necessary since there's no one place to send people. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any sourced data into the main articles if it isn't already covered there. We have a bunch of overlapping and poorly sourced articles in this field that could be consolidated. As long as culturally-specific content doesn't wind up conflated with sourcing/data from the wrong cultures, or put into articles where they don't fit (this is only a problem when editors don't read the sources), I'm all for some streamlining. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 6 March 2018 (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.