Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elle (pronoun)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kirito (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elle (pronoun)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

The article was recently deleted in an Afd from eswikipedia. The reasons for its deletion were that it was an original research with a promotional text on the use of neologism. The article is a translation of that eswikipedia version with all those problems that led to its deletion. Sources do not show relevance for example reference 7 does not cover at all what the section on its use mentions in fact everything is an assumption because the source does not speak anything that and besides that it is an unreliable source. The History section does not speaks neologism but about non-sexist language and there is a part that tries to promote the word and its use. While other parts of the article are presented as a news report. This neologism has been rejected by the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) and its use is almost non-existent. The subject evidently does not pass WP:NEO, WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV. Kirito (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If an article about a Spanish word was just deleted two days ago in the Spanish Wikipedia, it's very unlikely that the word is notable enough for an article in the English Wikipedia. Even if the pronoun "elle" were accepted in Spanish, the topic would be better covered as a brief mention in Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns; the issues this word is intended to address are similar to those in some other languages, including English. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In any event, if this article is kept, it would need to be moved to Elle (Spanish pronoun), because "elle" has been a pronoun for a long time -- just not in Spanish. It's the French word for "she". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a second choice, merge to Gender neutrality in Spanish. I wasn't aware of that article until XOR mentioned it below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This gender neutral pronoun is gaining traction in Latin America. It has been explained and used in films, academic articles, and crrently in every day discourse. The title of the article can be changed to Elle_(Spanish gender neutral pronoun) to avoid any confusion. RachelWex (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment The call has gone out on Twitter[1] encouraging followers to post "keep" here. There's some sort of template that can go at the top of the page for this sort of thing, I just don't know what it is. Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
clear keep -- long complicated, political process in asserting that there is another gender in appellation in Spanish -- notable just for the fact that its been created as a political act of commentary -- sources support that -- its similar to any number of LGBTQ terms that have complicated political discourse in English. Agree with RachelWex on renaming, Sadads (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably renamed) or merge to Gender neutrality in Spanish. There's enough English-language coverage and commentary that writing about it would not be a problem [2][3][4]. Wikipedias in different languages have different inclusion standards, and whether articles are kept or deleted on one isn't generally informative either way about whether they should be kept or deleted on another. XOR'easter (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closing of the Spanish-language AfD says in part (my translation):

We cannot accept something that the Real Academia de la Lengua (Royal Academy of the Spanish Language) has not allowed. [...] It seems paradoxical that we are, on the one hand, adhering to the RAE standards, but on the other, in this case we turn our backs on it.

In other words, the closer's rationale seems to relate to es-Wikipedia policy on standard Spanish language. As such, that AfD might not be as relevant as it appears to this one. Cnilep (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't follow the Spanish Wikipedia deletion discussion, so I don't know what threshold is used on that project. Some wikis have much higher notability thresholds than the English Wikipedia. However, on this project the WP:GNG applies and we don't put any weight at all on whether a word is 'officially' a word, recognised by the guardians and gatekeepers of the language (mainly because English does not have this concept.) Id add this, this and this to the list of sources that cover the topic. It's also disappointing to see AfD nominations made when it appears the proposer hasn't actually done a simple Google to check whether there are sources. The Land (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue is not wether this is a dictionnary entry : gender neutral pronouns are being disussed in virtually every languages and there are sources attesting it.Plus there are sources in English, showing that the notability goes beyond the spanish speaking areas, which demonstrates the notoriety of the word. I see no concrete reasons to follow the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) as mentionned in es-wiki, we rely on sources, what can be noted in the article is this instition's position regarding the word, provided there are sources. We dont rely here on en-wiki on RAE to make notability decisions, Nattes à chat (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether we should have separate articles about each of the gender neutral pronouns in other languages, rather than covering them in articles about gender neutrality in language. (For comparison, the disambiguation pages Él and Ella don't even mention that those are the Spanish pronouns for "he" and "she" respectively.) This article explains that the uses of the pronoun "elle" are "To refer to a person who does not identify with only the male or female gender ... To refer to a group of people that contain more than one gender ... To refer to a generic individual ... [and] To refer to someone you do not know without assuming their gender." It's likely that there are, or will be, proposed gender-neutral pronouns in French, Italian, and other languages -- and the uses of those new pronouns will be exactly the same as the gender-neutral pronoun for Spanish. Hence, rather than having a separate encyclopedia article for each pronoun, the pronouns should be covered in appropriate articles about the general topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources referenced by XOR'easter and those already in the article. Seems to pass WP:GNG to me. I don't speak Spanish, but Google Translate of the AfD there seems to suggest that (a) the non-endorsement of the RAE for the word was given weight (as Cnilep has already noted) and (b) reliable sources discussing said non-endorsement were discounted from being considered reliable sources about the word itself (Las tres primeras y la décima referencias van sobre lo que se comenta arriba: la postura de la RAE. Es decir sobre cómo el neilogismo no está reconocido)—unfortunately, there's no link to which those sources were prior to deletion. Neither of those arguments would hold water in an AfD on en.wiki. However, it does look like the content here is indeed a direct translation of the Spanish: does that create any copyright issues, if the contributors to the page on es.wiki can no longer be seen? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to comment, since there seems to have been canvassing going on, that I saw this through a delsort page on my watchlist, and was not aware of canvassing until I read the arguments above. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly didn't expect this to happen when the afd was opened. See this[5] and then a user appears who created the frwikipedia version. This distorts the process. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NPOV is important. There are many neologisms even in Spanish about this and they do not have an article, I would understand if the salvageable information is merged in Gender neutrality in Spanish because it would encompass all of this. Kirito (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but we do have articles on words and sayings when it is possible to write about them encyclopedically (one memorable example). XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per YorkshireLad. The deletion debate on eswiki itself was contentious and gender-neutral pronouns are clearly more notable than run-of-the-mill dictionary words. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This debate is distorted. There is no reason to continue if a canvassed was sent and weird things happened. Withdrawal nomination. Kirito (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (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.