Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cishomonormativity


 * 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. It seems the consensus is to delete, with even one of those defending the article agreeing it is not really well established at this point. No prejudice against an article when there are better references. I urge Lilleskvat not to be discouraged, and hope that they will find material to write one under whatever name does become accepted. .  DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cishomonormativity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recently coined term with very little coverage online. Appears to be mostly point of view essay and original research. Large sections without support, much quoting of opinion but not much else. Dmol (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sections are copied or adapted from heteronormativity, with original synthesis to apply that article's references to the novel term. None of the sources discuss cishomonormativity (I presume - the word was apparently invented in 2011 and all the sources predate that), making this article largely original research. Google scholar search for reasonable variations of the term gives no relevant results; a Google search of the term gives only non-notable or primary sources. It appears this is a non-notable neologism 107.10.43.91 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I allow myself to copy here the comments posted in the talk section.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> User talk:107.10.43.91 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for a necesary and well descrived definition of Cishomonormativity.

I cannot see the reasons why this entrance should be deleted.

Cishomonormativity is a concept used in academic research and in LGBT networks when power structures, privileges and norms are challenged within such networks.

Some persons also use the term "homonormativity" and others "cisnormativity". Those terms are widely used on the net.

However since LGBT organisations combine perspectives of sexual orientation and gender identity cishomonormativity is the term normally used when minorised groups challenge both privileges based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Human beings are diverse and plural, therefore we can be discriminated against many different grounds. When we are discriminated against different grounds at the same time, discrimination can be understood as multiple and intersectional. The term Cishomonormativity gives a better picture of what multiple and intersectional discrimination is.

I support keeping the entrance of Cishomonormativity as it appears.

Thank you,

Miguel Cishomonormativity and subsidiarity

I am new using wikipedia so I hope I am using the right procedure right now, otherwise, plese let me know.

It is truth cishomonormativity is a term adapted from heteronormativity. Mutatis mutandis "biphobia" is a term adapted from "homophobia", not because of that "biphobia" lacks necesarily legitimacy. Therefore I do not think that this kind of argument is strong enough be used to delete the article.

If you look in google "homonormativity", you will find many hits http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sv&q=journal+of+bisexuality+homonormativity&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

You can also find an article written by me as bisexual researcher for the "Journal of Bisexuality" ( Deconstructing Biphobia), where I use the term "homonormativity".

However when discrimination is to be understood within an LGBT context where both gender identity dimensions and sexual orientation dimensions are to be taken into account, the right term is not homonormativity but cishomonormativity.

This is the example the article uploaded in wikipedia refers to, a seminar on Cishomonormativity with discussions based on sexual orientations topics and gender identity topics.

Cishomonormativity is a term created in 2011, and this is the reason why there is not much literature where this term is used yet. However this term is verbally used in academic circles and certain LGBT frameworks, where it is perfectly understood.

For example, Cishomonormativity (as concept, though not as term as such) was used and understood in the first Global Bisexual Conference on Bisexuality ( Birecon) held in London in 2010, also in the first spanish national conference on Bisexuality "marcando precedente" ( http://encuentrosbi.cogam.arcopoli.org/ ). I could provide the contact information of the organisers of such events. They support the use of the term "cishomonormativity" nowadays.

I believe that it is important to keep in mind subsidiarity when approaching ourselves to different discourses, using this susidiarity with responsability when building wikipedia together.

Cishomonormativity as a critical term coined within minorised communities that are recently starting to create their own discourse ( notice BiReCon was held in 2010, last year) is understood and used. The main issue is not that this term does not exist but that the lack of literature written by minorised groups affected by cishomonormativity is rampant.

The persons that are reaserching on power structures, privileges and norms within LGBT contextes are doing their best to combat that, but ressources lack so this is the reason why I support this article to be kept.

Maybe it would be a good idea to wait a couple of days to let the persons that use the term cishomonormativity in their reseraches to speak out.

If you look at the profile "Pangea Copenhagen" in facebook you will find the term already used as uploaded in wikipedia, also if you look at for example these home pages:

http://www.bisexualesalgarabia.tk/mediateca/documentos/glosario-bisexual/cishomonormatividad/

http://laradicalbi.wordpress.com/cishomonormatividad/

The conclusions derived from this can be that "cishomonormativity" is a term understood but it lacks being properly explained. Wikipedia is an excellent platform for that purpose.

I thank you

Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micalet (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lille Skvat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilleskvat (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism. Wikipedia may be an "excellent platform" to publicize your neologism, but that's not what we're here for.. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Clearly a different concept from heteronormativity and its usage does appear to have some verifiable sources. That being said, it's clearly a new term and not a widely-used one.  I'd support removing the material already present at heteronormativity and seeing what's left. Several Times (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and improve the article. Citations are good, term is new but its usage is verifiable. SparsityProblem (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment When you say the citations are good, what do you mean? The citations are all for terms like homonormativity and heteronormativity, as far as I can tell - I, at least, haven't seen any reliable sources for cishomonormativity. In fact, all of the references in that article predate 2011, which (per the article) is when the term was invented. The article seems to be mostly original research, and the sources that are out there for the term cishomonormativity are all non-notable (Facebook, Twitter and the like). 107.10.43.91 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism used as coat hanger for essay. &mdash; RHaworth 10:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As SparsityProblem said above, the term is relatively new, but as someone who has worked in the field, I might be able to find some citations, in studies and/or gender/sexual identity books etc. However, I also agree that if it doesn't get some good verifiable citations soon, it may as well be deleted, because, again, we're not a platform for original research and we need to verify everything we post up. /-\ urelius &#124;) ecimus  05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RHaworth. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.