Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engender

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 KEEP. Roscelese presented secondary sources covering this topic, which none of the delete !voters acknowledged, yet alone rebutted. postdlf (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engender

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4] (it's apparently the same group as the Scottish Women's Budget Group, correct me if I'm wrong?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me because this is the first time I've said anything in an AfD and I'm trying to learn. We might want to keep this article as Roscelese says, but it's not right that everyone who searches for "Engender" finds a page about the Scottish organisation. I think that someone looking for "engender" should find a disambiguation page that points to several different places: "engender" on Wiktionary, an article about Engender (Health) who are here, an article about Engender (South Africa) who are here, an article about Engender (Europe) who are here, and this article, which ought to be called Engender (Scotland). So if I have to put in one of those words in bold (do I?), then mine is keep, rename and disambiguate.-Beth 84 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, very little coverage and they're only the 8th hit for "engender" on google. - Haymaker (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Engender" is also a word, so this isn't very surprising. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lionel (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2011 (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.