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 redirect to Genderqueer. History remains undeleted; selective merge to be done at the discretion of any participating editor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enbian[edit]

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

This neologism is only sourced to Tumblr, and I don't find any reliable references. I don't know whether it's a plausible redirect term or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the discussion! A big problem today is that a lot of discussion of marginalized groups happens in closed groups in social media platforms etc. The term enbian is indeed very very young, however it is spreading quite rapidly in nonbinary groups on social media, where people have long been looking for a term similar to gay or lesbian to describe love between nonbinary people. I would argue that this term will become quite significant and widely known in nonbinary communities in around a year, currently it is just starting to spread. I have split opinion regarding deletion: Indeed the term is not yet widely known, however in my opinion it is a term that is unlikely to have competition to become the primary term to refer to something that like gay and lesbian is in strong need of a term. for it to become widely known, a Wikipedia entry is helpful since for many it is the first place to look for information, maybe even when searching from other articles on orientation etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of course, and not about primary information, so thats why i have split opinion. Maybe i can ask in some nonbinary groups if there are bloggers who are using the term.--Mangostaniko (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look even if there was a reliable source, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is simply a word for a concept that already has more than one article, but the topic is best covered at Genderqueer. If it is not yet widely used outside the LGBT community, then it may be better placed at LGBT slang. Either way, I can't see how we can support a whole article for a simple definition of an existing topic. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(in case it wasn't clear) I am suggesting this article is deleted, but pointing out the content can be written into either the Genderqueer or LGBT slang articles, depending on which is the best fit. It could be considered that this page is made into a redirect to an ((anchor)) on either page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it wouldn't be appropriate here even if it were sourced, as it's just a word, and would do fine as a dictionary entry. Not even close. Rockypedia (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT slang or possibly Genderqueer. It's definitely a word in use, but the sources are basically all primary and none secondary; i.e., the lexicographers haven't caught up with it yet. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if redirect to a section in Genderqueer is possible, i would be in favor of that. Mangostaniko (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section in Genderqueer, per talk's argument. I will also point out that we do have quite a large article for the word that describes a relationship between two heterosexual people: Marriage --Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is tied up with all sorts of legality, ceremony and tradition that make it a thing onto itself, and anyway, an Enbian couple could get married too, it's not specific to heterosexual people. Maybe in 20 years this will have a long article and lots of sources, but right now it is fledgling term for a developing concept, that is already covered in other articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genderqueer, agree with the redirect folks' rationale but merely redirecting will not be helpful as there is no description of the term there. --J04n(talk page) 13:21, 12 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.