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 of the debate was keep. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pangender[edit]

Probable neologism [1] coined by a webpage or something like that, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms... needs evidence to be shown of this word used in print or dictionaries. W.marsh 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neologism; original research Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are examples of this being used in print and the term seems to be gaining traction. Would vote keep if someone makes a case for it. -- JJay 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Comments below and burgeoning use in print [2] convince me the article should be retained. Aren't we all just a little pangender? -- JJay 05:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, do the results in your link really mean anything? The word pangender doesn't seem to be present in the pages for the books in your search, and a normal search for pangender reveals nothing [3], you have to turn on some additional search option to get your results, with that option I was able to get results for words I made up on the fly like quasimetal, ultrahyper and metagendered. --W.marsh 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is working fine for me. The word is used in those six books. Quasimetal and metagendered as well, so someone beat you to the punch.-- JJay 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've looked in all 6 books and found the word? For all 3 examples I gave, and the word "pangender", a normal result yields nothing, and you have to turn on the "additional results" which seems to just look for root words. --W.marsh 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The results are automatically displayed with the excerpt and page numbers. -- JJay 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just saw that, I didn't realize Amazon did that. Sorry for the confusion --W.marsh 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bit more with "pangendered". Note this only works with books that have full-text search activated (i.e. a small sub-set of all books). -- JJay 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This term has been used in newspaper articles and is widely used in the queer community and in student/university political organisations. Its a term that is more widely known and has been in usage longer than homoflexible for example. Would vote to keep.Mittens.the.kitten, 03:59, 10 January 2006

I am not trying to come off as inconsiderate here, but this word is pretty much a textbook neologism (see my above link). If this word can be found used meaningfully in newspaper articles or books, rather than just alluded to, that's a start. I'm willing to help here... but the sparse Google coverage still makes me think this is a neologism not very widely used at all. --W.marsh 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Keep. I myself am pangender, and it is a common enough term to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs)
• Seems notable enough for a neologism. Merge to pansexuality. While the leading sentence of Pangender talks about the difference between the word 'sex' refering to anatomy versus gender identity, the Pansexuality article is clearly talking about gender identity (not someone with all anatomies :) - so they're talking about the same thing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z
  • Also, the second paragraph is self-contradictory:

    Pangender is a term for people who feel that they cannot be labeled as female or male in gender. ... The term is meant by the queer community to be one that is inclusive and means "all genders".

  The last sentence would imply pangender includes traditional males and females, while the first does not. So make up your mind and add citations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z

• Looks like Quarl is right and a merge would be a good solution. -- JJay 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was impressed with the amazon links at first. Then I noticed that in each of the four books, the word "pangender" appeared only once. So I decided to try the first few obscure words that pooped into my head: cthonic appears in 50 books, gubernatrix in 31, zoanthropy in 28, and phylactery in 2,505. Umm, maybe that one is only obscure to me... regardless, this combined with the low strike rate in the nomination and no news mean neologism to me, so I recomend that we delete this article. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:13, 10 January 2006
• Keep well known term within the GLBT community -- čĥàñľōŕď 11:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Err, testimony of editors does not count as a reliable source. Could everyone please review the various WP:V pages? I wouldn't expect you to delete something simply because I hadn't heard of it. You would justifiably heap scorn upon me for making a statement like that. I have a scratch and a sniff and provide some testable arguments. So please, please, don't expect something to be kept simply because you have heard of it. Give us nice solid references, ones we can hang out hat on. Make us believe with evidence the scene you are setting. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you... and even then, just because a word exists somewhere... I've seen nothing compelling with respect to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. In academia, particularly in fields like gender studies, it's pretty easy to coin a term... that doesn't mean the term is encyclopedic. I think merging per Quarl is the best idea presented so far. --W.marsh 15:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. Merge per Quarl. Even that, however, may confer more legitimacy to a nascent neologistic concept than an encyclopedic project should feel comfortable about providing. Especially in light of how many use WP as a resource. Eusebeus 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP as per čĥàñľōŕď above --Prof Jolly 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to pansexuality per Quarl -- Astrokey44|talk 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, no recent news hits, only 471 Google hits. Even if it's a real term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Quarl. Stifle 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DONT MERGE sexuality and gender are seperate issues --Prof Jolly 02:08, 13 January 2006 (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.