Talk:Whorephobia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danithecounselor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Does not need a Wikipedia article
‎Danithecounselor, this does not need a Wikipedia article. See WP:NEO and WP:No page. The topic can be covered at the Slut-shaming article or the Sex worker article (where it is already mentioned). Furthermore, the article uses sources that do not use the term whorephobia. So see WP:Synthesis as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this edit by Drmies. Yes, I will need to merge the article. It's a waste of time taking it to WP:AfD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. This is a distinct subject from Slut-shaming and the term is in common use so WP:NEO is not applicable. --John B123 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Like WP:NEO states, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term." It's a neologism regardless of what common use it has. And I don't see that it's in common use. If it were, in contrast to the article's current state, the editor would have used sources that actually use the term. As seen at Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1, we've been over using sources that do not identify the topic as whatever it is to make claims about the topic. Whorephobia is an aspect of slut-shaming. The topic can indeed be validly merged there or to the Sex worker article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd go farther than Flyer22 Reborn: not even "need"--"should not have". I already removed one source which didn't even mention the word ("neologism" is possibly the right word, but it has aspects of original research to it). I can't see the Sexualities article, but the one that's now the second reference, from Sociology of Health & Illness, also doesn't contain the word. Nor does the article from BMC Public Health. Frankly I'm tired of going to the library website every time, finding these journals, seeing if I have online access--three of the ones I looked at don't mention the word, and that's enough reason for me to give up faith. Go ahead, Flyer, and merge it, or redirect it. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. I'll get around to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone else did it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)