Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yinyang ren

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 delete. ✗plicit 09:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yinyang ren

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This alleged Chinese gender identity or gender category is a complete fail of WP:GNG. No WP:Reliable sources in English appear to exist, and the lack of interwiki links to Chinese or any other Eastern language is highly suspect. The Portuguese article's sources are either non-RS, don't verify the claim that this is a recognized gender category, and/or are about the use of this as a word for intersex people. We obviously don't do articles on mere translations of words for well-known concepts.

The one source cited in this article, per Google Translate, is about recommending that everyone display "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics, and does not call it a gender identity of its own. In fact, the author even implies that, as the Chinese sources in the Portuguese article show, this is just a Chinese word for intersex, since the author explains their own use is different from that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notwithstanding the single source cited, this word normally means "intersex". No evidence of notability for the supposed distinct gender identity. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intersex - if we have an article for the subject under its English language name, and this is a plausible search term in another language, we should probably just redirect it. The subject itself is clearly notable (by it's English language translated title), which is why we already have an article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: Probably should not be redirected, per WP:FORRED. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111 is probably right. An article exists in this item for something translated to semi-yinyang from jawiki, meaning probably Pseudohermaphroditism or human hermaphroditism. Tacielle (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: yeah, I'm conscious of WP:FORRED but the fact that some people might think its different, or at least sufficiently different to create an article or search for it (though its not), makes me ere on the side of caution. And ultimately, redirects are cheap. I don't have any strong objection to a redirect not being established though, should someone choose to apply WP:FORRED strictly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:FORRED warrants deletion, not redirection, and redirects being cheap doesn't negate the reasons given there. Deletion also makes it easier to clean up the links - they are removed by XfDCloser or turn red if missed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was more a specific reference to the first line of WP:CHEAP which says, "A redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject". Given one has already been created, we are essentially avoiding recreation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per WP:PERMA: "There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject", "There is little important to say about the subject.", and "The article has few incoming links if any at all, so editors aren't seeing the article.". This article hence no reasonable prospect for expansion, and should be deleted unless an editor can expand the article with verifiable information. Theknine2 (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scholarly RS exist but it's still a wp:dicdef that evidently means intersex. If non-intersex people in China are adopting this term to describe themselves as nonbinary, we could talk about that at LGBT in China but we'd need sources for it, not, like, English-language blog lists of supposed third genders in nonwestern cultures. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:FORRED. This is a dictdef with some additional dubious unsourced material. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Third gender#Asia-Pacific, just as x-gender (which means the same thing as non-binary in Japanese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacielle (talk • contribs)

That would not be correct, since no material about this is there or should be there, as there is no evidence that "yinyang ren" is a gender identity or a word for one, and instead evidence that it is a word for intersex. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:52, 25 September 2021 (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.