Xenogenders: A Google News search finds a handful (8 at last count) of non-RS sources and the one LBGTQ Nation source.  There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of the term or topic.  Google Books shows only self-published works that reference fandom.com and wikis.  The only work on Google Scholar that looks halfway legit is in what appears to be a non-peer-reviewed journal that describes itself as "Journal
 SA daring and controversial leader in the field of cultural studies, the journal consistently focuses attention on questions of gender, sexuality, race, and the environment, publishing key works by the most influential social and cultural theorists. " Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Given Evergreen's search, it won't surprise anyone that there's nothing in ngrams as they have already covered Book search.  And as Evergreen already did a regular search at Scholar, I decided to look at Scholar in a different way, restricting the search to articles in which xenogender appears in the title as a kind of proxy for WP:SIGCOV , as one would expect that articles that had it in the title would be the most likely ones to have significant coverage of it in the article (you'd still have to test that theory and prove SIGCOV by reading the articles; test search query as a control: cisgender ).  However, the search results there tend toward the same result we are finding elsewhere, i.e., nothing serious has been written about it yet; hence delete by failure to meet WP:GNG .  I see nothing WP:DUE in the article now that deserves merging.  If the search results looked more promising, Normally I might consider draftifying, but at this point, I don't see where solid sources are going to come from.  Maybe try again with a Draft in a year?  Mathglot ( talk ) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Mathglot SchoolChromebookUser ( talk ) 13:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I have found a decent source mentioning xenogenders and have cited it in the article (Beattie, Michael; Lenihan, Penny (2018-03-21).  Counselling Skills for Working with Gender Diversity and Identity.  Jessica Kingsley Publishers.  p. 102.  ISBN 978-1-78450-481-6).  However, considering GNG and such, this topic is probably best covered as a sentence or two within non-binary gender (which it presently is).  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] EDIT - REDIRECT to Non-binary gender#Xenogender - basically give it the same treatment as Xenogender article (see discussion on Talk:Xenogender ) 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  The current form of the xenogenders article lacks real substance and notability.  Xenogenders to my knowledge are a particularly niche subset of non-binary and transgender identities which are already mentioned in the aforementioned articles.  After a brief review, the low number of reliable sources and the general lack of notability brings me to the conclusion that this topic currently does not warrant a dedicated article per WP:GNG .  The low number of reliable sources contributes to the potential difficulty of building a reliable well-sourced article on the topic at the moment.  I believe the optimal course of action as of right now is to merge relevant information into the preexisting section on the non-binary genders article and then either delete xenogenders after draftifying it or turn it into a redirect to non-binary .  Perhaps in the future, it could be revisited but as of right now, it is my opinion that it does not meet Wikipedia standards.  Thanks.  ZombiUwU ( 💬 ~♥~ 📝 ) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the same target of xenogender ( Non-binary gender § Xenogender ).  WP:TOOSOON .  -- MikutoH talk!  01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect as above and per EvergreenFir and Mathglot.  It doesn't seem to meet GNG (which, I emphasize, requires significant coverage from quality sources).  I'm not sure the sentence on this at non-binary gender is reliably sourced, so I'd be okay with deleting it outright, otherwise just redirect it.  Crossroads -talk- 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose merge/redirect , as wide swaths of xenogenders don't fall under the nonbinary umbrella whatsoever.  Simply delete .  Tdmurlock ( talk ) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete