Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minority Sexual and Gender Identity

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 as neologism, redirect possible. May be recreated if and when it is sufficiently and reliably sourced. Sandstein 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Sexual and Gender Identity

Unlike LGBT, this doesn't seem to be a notable term, nor have an established meaning. Sporadic Google hits for both the plural and the singular form; since the top result is "Bradford University MSGI Society" (also conveniently linked from the article), it seems to me that this is where the term (with the meaning given in the article) was coined. (The other external link is just an article where the phrase happens to be used.) Originally proposed for deletion by me; contested by creator with a comment "Google is not everything". Delete as a neologism and since Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of newly coined terms or other ideas, or for campaigning in general. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feared that this might happen. I would like to point out though that although the nominator implies that Bradford MSGI made up the term MSGI, this is not the case. It was already in usage by LGBT activists the society was in regular contact with and due to a dispute over queer inclusion the issue was sidestepped by including everything, hence the name change to MSGI. Where exactly this term has come from I do not know, and I have been looking. The inclusion of the other external link was to demonstrate that MSGI is in use by other organisations independant from and unconnected to Bradford MSGI, and thus it wasn't just invented. I understand that Ghits are very low for anything beyond Bradford MSGI and Warwick Pride, but as I said above, Google is not eveyrthing, and I would appreciate some time for the widespread oral use of this word to find its way into academic literature. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 11:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There exists very little reliable information on this topic, and it would be an appropriate section within other pages, such as gender identity. There is no way any one can predict whether the term will ever make its way into academic literature. Nonetheless, should it enter such literature, then the page can certainly be re-created then.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per WP:NEO and particularly WP:N. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I respect the intent of the article creator. Also, we need more editing in the Sexolgy and Sexuality area documenting and creating articles that are out of the mainstream and more along the fringes. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is not more receptive to newly created terminology. I agree though, that this seems to be a neologism, and relatively new. Per Cantor, it can be re-created as it usage grows in academic literature. Atom (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into LGBT. This may be too late for a rewrite but this article would likely be fine if about the concept rather than the actual term which, like Intersex is gaining worldwide acceptance even though many folks still call all LGBTIQQ people homophiles, homosexuals, queers or some other less adequate term. Banjeboi 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very few hits on google. I know that Google is not everything, but no one is offering any better way of verifying the use of this term. This term may well deserve its own page in the future, but just now it is not notable enough for its own page. Jenafalt (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (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.