Talk:overgenderize

RFD discussion: March 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

overgenderize

Only 6 hits on Google. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is an RFV matter. I think it's citable: [1] (good), [2] (but it's a verbal noun; don't know if it can be used to cite the verb), [3] (though I don't like that it's between quote marks) and [4] (same + the original quote is at [5], but I can't see the relevant passage). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I tried Googling overgenderise and got absolutely zilch. DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One hit for overgenderised. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Equinox has already deleted it, on the grounds that it's an edit by a permanently-banned editor (Pass a Method). Any time you see this type of entry added by a Carphone Warehouse/TalkTalk/Opal Telecom IP that geolocates to northeast London or neighboring parts of Essex (or even just to London, as in this case), save yourself the trouble. I would hazard a guess that their entry creations meet CFI maybe a third of the time, and even then almost never by much. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Though the entry may have been created by a banned user, and people were having trouble finding it, I am seeing different results. I am recreating the entry, with valid citations that prove that this term is indeed used in enough durably archived sources to pass RFV. I make it a point to even be curious about the actions of troublemakers, so as to see if even their actions or thoughts add value to the dictionary in some way. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your version is probably much better than the original- Pass a Method doesn't care about how a term is actually used, so often the definition is mostly or completely wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice work citing it. IMO the RFD is now moot, since it was an RFV question to begin with an the word is now, by all appearances, cited... - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice job PseudoSkull! Thank you guys for your input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. Now I must note that the altform overgenderise is not attested according to my search. undergenderize, unsurprisingly, (and related; undergenderise, undergenderization, etc.) is also not at all used in durably archived sources. overgenderization and overgenderisation also got almost nothing. So, overgenderize is pretty lucky to have survived this; PaM was lucky in this case to have added an entry that happened to be attested in comparability to all these others aforementioned they could have tried. Anyhow, scratching this, since there's no reason to delete it anymore, and never really met RFD standards for deletion anyway. This particular term also has no need to go to RFV at this point. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• RFD kept; WT:ATTEST requirements satisfied (these are for RFV, but anyway). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)