Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 31 August 2007

Genderfuck

Genderfuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense. It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value. If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary. The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made. 87.127.44.154 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note this nomination is being submitted by me out on behalf of User:87.127.44.154, who posted that rationale on the talk page, here. I have no opinion on the deletion. --Dreaded Walrus 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has pages that link to it, but it completely lacks references and the overall notability of the phrase is debatable. AR Argon 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is well known in queer circles, has a distinctly different meaning to genderqueer and has many many references (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Genderfuck#Sources_and_informing_of_my_intention_to_clean_up_this_page_.28maybe.29 for some links...). The article obviously is sourced, even if you don't use the links given on the talk page, there are two books from 2000 (!) which apparently use the term. This isn't a new term... (Yes I am a new member, I'm over it, why aren't you?) 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) — Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - couldn't that list be interpreted as a personal attack on the people in question? There are no references to prove what does appear to be nonsense at the moment. Lradrama 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove them for now. Even if it's not BLP-violating, it's certainly OR without citations, and as a side note, I've just discovered not to Google "genderfuck" at work. :) --Dreaded Walrus 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I personally don't actually like the term, but it is an established and notable term in its own right. I get the impression that someone has merely looked at the title, seen an obscenity and decided that they wanted it gone. Hopefully this AfD will prompt someone to put some effort into referencing and expanding the article, and the list of links on its talk page should provide a start in that process. --AliceJMarkham 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary - references won't help. This is a neologism and doesn't belong. MarkBul 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per the following:

1. WP:NEO - We are not a dictionary. "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities."
2. WP:NEO is clear on reliable sources for neologisms; a book on How I Became Queer and one non-peer reviewed theory do not constitute reliable sources
3. WP:OR - as noted by others, this is original research.

/Blaxthos 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasons stated above. This is unsourced, and even if it were, appears to be little more than a dicdef/neologism. If it is significantly synonymous with Genderqueer as the nominator posits, then a redirect (or perhaps slight merge) may be warranted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above: WP:NEO. (Removing my comment per information below) Eusebeus 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this article is sourced, those of you failing to notice this may be directed to the section marked "Sources". The concept is not simply restricted to an obscure subculture, but is widely used in the scholarly literature. Skomorokh 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above comments. Sourcing and notability are irrelevant - this is a dicdef neologism, so doesn't belong on WP. EyeSerene 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real identity. The article needs to be expanded, yes, but it's as legimiate as genderqueer and third gender. Kolindigo 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm seeing sources added that lend credibility that this is a recognized term perhaps worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Removal of original research and an addition of more historical perspectives will improve this well beyond a dictionary definition. Here's a potential source for more historical info. There's scores of Google hits, so this is totally expandable. (Apparently Perth has a Genderfuck Day?) — Scientizzle 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have heard of this term outside of Misplaced Pages and the article has references and sources. Can be expanded further beyond a dictionary definition. -- Roleplayer 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could use more work, but enough sources have now been provided to show that the term has been discussed in the scholarly literature. The article goes beyond a dictionary definition, and the term is not particularly new; I've added a source that dates it to the 1970s. Note that it is not at all the same as genderqueer, and equating the two would be original research. —Celithemis 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, nominator is completely wrong, genderfuck is not a synonym for "genderqueer", ("with a profanity used simply for shock value" or not), it is a notable, well defined, concept in wide use in the real world. This article deserves expansion, not deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  Note, the term "genderfuck" appears in the academic literature, see for example:

  • Glick, E. (2000) Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression, Feminist Review 64:19-45.
  • Reich, J.L. (1992) Genderfuck: the law of the dildo. Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 15:112-27.
  • Coviello, P. (2007) review of "World Enough Sex and Time in Recent Queer Studies", GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13:387-401.
  • Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text 48:77-94.
  • Collier, R (1996) “Coming together?”: Post-heterosexuality, masculine crisis and the new men's movement. Feminist Legal Studies 4:3-48.

  Pete.Hurd 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - nomination is based on false premises, namely that the article is "patent nonsense" and that "genderfuck" is a synonym for "genderqueer." Otto4711 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "Genderfuck" is not nonsense. I am living proof and find that the consideration for removal of this article is offensive. 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.24.2 (talk)
• Keep or merge - the rationale provided by User:87.127.44.154 is factually inaccurate. If they have sources showing Genderqueer and Genderfuck to be synonymous they should provide them. It is totally incorrect to say that the article is non-notable (Pete.Hurd has provided a sampling of the academic work that includes the term) - the article does need more sourcing and some clean-up but they are not grounds for deletion. I do think it would be better if it were merged into Genderqueer a large article such as Gender identity or gender role--Cailil 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  IMO, Genderqueer and Genderfuck are totally different concepts and ought not to be merged. Pete.Hurd 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I got into a bit of a muddle at the end of my comment. Basically I think Genderfuck needs to be expanded with sources now or to be brought into a parent article until there are enough sources to expand beyond a stub. But there is no reason to delete it--Cailil 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The two terms are not identical, although there does appear to be a bit of overlap. Genderqueer is an identity, genderfuck is action to shake up peoples ideas of gender identity (Performance art, for example). So genderfuck (action) may impact genderqueer (object). There are more than enough references, especially Peter Hurd's, to establish that it's not a neologism and that it's notable. And it is not a naughty version of genderqueer. As in most AfD debates, the article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Rationale for nomination is faulty, as the two terms do not seem to be synonymous, going by previous comments here. Also, FWIW, if geographical spread of usage is anything to go by, genderfuck is the more widely known term (I live in New Zealand, and have heard the term several times - I had to look up genderqueer, since I had not come across the term before). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense with profanity (ex. "Fuck" is a profanity). NHRHS2010 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Compare the article with WP:NONSENSE, it's not "nonsense". Also note that Misplaced Pages is not censored, it's an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Sideline Question. Can someone point me towards wiki's policy on editing by a high school student who (based on the fact that they won't finish high school until 2010) is presumably underaged and who may therefore not be legally allowed to access the content that they are commenting on? --AliceJMarkham 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not a citizen of the US (and so forgive my ignorance on this topic), but is it really illegal for highschool students to read the word "fuck" in that country? Pete.Hurd 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it is not. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We try to avoid discriminating against people merely because of their age (or indeed for any reason). There are teenagers more mature than adults, and as AuburnPilot points out, there is no law against reading profanities in the United States. With regards to the policy on age, I can think of at least one administrator in the past who has been 16 or younger. I can't find any specific policy on young editors, but this may be of interest. --Dreaded Walrus 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Pete Hurd above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deletefuck This articlefuck is a neofuckologism. Misplaced Pages is a not a fuckslang dicfucktionary. I am no expert on LGBT studies, but we are not teaching people how to talk like a Fuckney chimney sweep. --Pixelface 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates