Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sie and hir (second nomination)

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 Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun, no reason to delete the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sie and hir (second nomination)

Sie and hir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Still an unsourced article.
Not widely accepted as part of English language (or, if so, certainly not demonstrated to be so.)
Grossly POV.
Article lists several other possible alternatives, concretely proving that 'sie' and 'hir' aren't standard. Bladestorm (talk • contribs)

• Delete as doesn't assert notability/no references or sources Mangecourt 23:14, 20th November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - needs sources, but a recognized form. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment ATM, would need to be deleted as close to original research, but then again it may well be true and verifiable... therefore delete if not improved by deletion date to be verifiable. Dave 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• "Use of gender neutral pronouns in online communities". Which GNPs are in active use on the net? Is there a standard? Gender Neutral Pronouns. Uncle G 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 3^rd link doesn't work. To make a decision, I'd like to be comfortable that these words are in sufficiently common usage that they deserve a seperate article to the main list of all gender neutral words. I don't consider that demonstrated as of yet, but I'm quite sure that it is possible that it could be. Dave 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence for notability of these new words. Edison 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Given the absence of sources, seems like original research. Dsreyn 13:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect, helpful as search engine terms but perhaps not as a separate article. Uncle G's comments above bear further inquiry, however. -- nae'blis 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (Do I actually vote myself? Or is it implied?) Something to note is that the tag declaring the article unverified has been there for months, and nobody's cared enough about the article to bother bringing it up to snuff. Even if it were reasonable to salvage it, there'd have to be someone willing to do the work. Bladestorm 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - these 'words' have been around for decades and despite the best efforts of those who would destroy the euphony of the English langauge have utterly and totally failed to achieve any currency. NN. Pete Fenelon 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John254 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Probable cleanup and keep Of course it would be nonsense to say these are standard words, but as I read the article, it doesn't make that claim. I've seen them around enough that I would expect the claims the article does make, can be sourced, or at least that enough of them can be sourced to leave enough for an article. As for Pete Fenelon's remarks -- it's not relevant to this discussion whether the adoption of these words would be a good idea. I don't think the article advocates for the words; if it did, that should be cleaned up, but is not grounds to delete. --Trovatore 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: If these 'words' have been around for decades, then the matter is noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to something like gender neutral pronouns. --Neo 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ugen64 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The entire content of the article is: "Proposed gender-neutral pronouns; have gained no currency; used in Star Trek and by Wilson." If that's really important it can be added to Gender-neutral Pronouns. Tesseran 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.