Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (kept) (6 deletes, 5 keeps, 1 merge). Scimitar 19:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heterophobia

 * Delete neologism used by homophobes, doesn't describe a real 'phobia' but is rather an idiotic retort to the use of the word homophobia. I suggest this be deleted. Revolución 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism, or redirect to Daphne Patai, who wrote a book with this title (it's about sexual harassment, btw, not gay-vs-straight anything) &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. JamesBurns 01:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable neologism and disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. Axon 09:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly merge and redirect to homophobia. -Sean Curtin 07:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism. CDThieme
 * Keep. Neologism are also lots of terms such as queer, homophobia, drag queen, genderqueer etc. and we have articles on them. Some people would like to censor every speech that is not convinient to them. --5ko 06:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You probably do not know that in wikipedia, in the context of VfD the term "neologism" is applied to neologism that have not entered the mainstream usage yet, i.e., the very "neo"-neologisms, not described anywhere. Which means that writing a wikipedia article about them amounts to original research, which is against the wikipedia policies. mikka (t) 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. ...and rewrite. Wikipedia has a lot of -phobia articles. --Alcidebava 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And even more doesn't and probably will never have (look into the article you link: -phobia). mikka (t) 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Google shows 9740 hits for Heterophobia and 12100 for heterophobic. There are even books with this title by authors like Ragan Fox or by Daphne Patai. The word has been used by politicians like Peter Tatchell and by artists like Eminem. Notable enough, I'd say. --Alcidebava 21:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I say again, Daphne Patai's book does not use the word with this meaning.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. mikka (t) 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if the term is in common enough usage and the article can be made into something more than a Wiktionary article. If the article can't be made into more than that by the time VfD is over, though, delete.  -Seth Mahoney 19:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 9K Google hits - should be notable enough. The BBC thought so, anyway, and if it's good enough for the BBC, it's good enough for me. Also, see . -- AlexR 11:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand greatly. I agree that this article is presently a  .  However, to imply that it is inherently useless, perhaps based on title alone, (whereas an article discussing homophobia is undisputedly valuable) suggests a double standard, which I thought we were supposed to avoid exhibiting.  If somebody VFD'd homophobia, there would be a wikipanic, and at least one person would mention that "the fact that somebody wants to delete article Foo proves that phenomenon Foo is widespread."  I would have to agree with this reasoning (in the case of phobias, sexual or non).  Off-topic, name a phobia that doesn't have denial as a side effect. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  07:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.