Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination)


 * 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. WP:SNOWBALL,  Delete, restore redirect. and protect. j⚛e deckertalk 07:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Massively POV. Rife with soapboxing phrases like simply refer to marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, linked to the degradation of religious liberty, and imperialist agenda. Is there any conceivable good article that could be made out of this? It's within the realm of possibility. Is there anything salvageable in the page history? No. I'm half-inclined to G11 this as completely promotional of an anti-gay point of view. (Or would that be heterophobic of me?) Seeing as the far more objective Homophobia already exists, I propose we revert to Sandstein's redirect to that section, and fully protect the page until and unless someone can propose an objective version that passes WP:42 (since really, the way I see it, the section in the Homophobia article does the job well enough).  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per nom — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - This is nothing more or less than an attack page. Additionally, the creator of the current article is user:3abos - assuming that they are also the Australian IP editor User:121.217.219.208, this is a pretty overt racist slur. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. POV, soapboxing, also it's a violation of WP:SYNTH, since it was cobbled together using a bunch or sources that don't even use the word "heterophobia." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding here that I support FPP if consensus turns this page back to a redirect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment if any users !voting to redirect are opposed to FPPing if that's the consensus, please say so. I'm just noting this so that if I RFPP after the fact, no one can say that there wasn't a consensus for it. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  13:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and SALT - violates so many Wiki guidelines and rules that I can't be bothered to list them all. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per nom. Unsalvageably biased. Sjö (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I suspect this is subject to speedy deletion as a re-creation of deleted content that has all the same issues for which this article was deleted before. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Malik, the page does not meet G4. Oh, incidentally, editors should note that the creator,, cannot comment here, as he's been blocked for a day for edit-warring on this article. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nonnotableneologismomania. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This does not exist as an actual phobia. Much like "white history month", a protest-oriented neologism does not deserve a standalone article unless the term itself it the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore the redirect and protect from editing. Rubbish. All this discussion illustrates is that besides "exact recreation of consensus-deleted content," perhaps we should have a provision for "much worse than consensus-deleted content." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore the redirect and protect from editing - This article is going to be an attack page, neutrality is going to be a real big issue there. Unless the page reach a recreation consensus, and stand on protect status, it may remain offensive and blatant. Eduemoni↑talk↓  21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect and salt per all above. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore the redirect and protect from editing - as suggested. Just plain silly. Stalwart 111  07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete When I read the nom I wanted to vote delete, but then I figured given the unanimity of the !vote even without me it wasn't necessary. Then I checked the article. It really is a disgusting piece of propaganda, and I loved the sloppy/slightly plagiaristic quote-without-a-citation. I added the citation just for fun (I've seen similar problems on other articles, and I've gotten pretty good at finding the sources). Then I realized that if I didn't come here and !vote for deletion it would look like I was actively trying to improve/defend the article. So here I am. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2013 (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.