Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homofascism (2nd 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   speedy delete as a non-notable neologism, as a prohibited recreation under category G4 (even if the first article was slightly different from this one), as a dictionary defintion, and due to overwhelming support for deletion. If this offensive term by chance at some time in a dystopia in the future, becomes more widely used, it will not be due to Wikipedia's fault. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Homofascism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable neologism. An article of this topic has previously been deleted through AfD, but this is different enough that speedy deletion is not an option, in my opinion. Lady of  Shalott  19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable term. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, seems to be almost exclusively used on a few political blogs. MuffledThud (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: LOL. Per MuffledThud  Phoenix of9  20:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POV and WP:OR issues stated in the past AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of use of the term in widespread or secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. marginal use of "homofascist" as a pure pejorative, of course only among anti gay hate groups. unfortunately, i can see homofascist becoming more commonly used, thanks to the culture of violent hate we live in. this article, though, is utter nonsense, and is pure neologism. there is no "homofascism" or "fascist acts". what is a fascist act? hmm, producing the first VW, wearing leather, hitting a nonfascist, kissing an avowed fascist, committing genocide, writing a treatise on corporatism, campaigning against smoking, starting ww2, raising german shepherds, attending hitler youth rallies as a child, forging an alliance between a branch of government and a large business, bla bla bla.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article as is is completely POV and needs to be scrubbed on that basis alone. Homofascism as a term/concept is notable only in the context of Christian right-wing folks using the term pejoratively. I'm not convinced that it arises to the level of notability but it has been used somewhat in this context. A Wiktionary entry may suffice and frankly it would remain a magnet for more anti-LGBT non-sense per WP:Beans. -- Banj e  b oi   22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDIC, at least as the article stands.   --Joe Decker (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. Getting close to Snow. The current 2 references are (1) an article where the only reference to this neologism is hyphenated (homo-fascism) in a 3rd party comment, not in the article, and (2) a personal video on google, which doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. This is a 2nd nom of an neologism article that has previously been deleted, and this time the creator got around the warning about re-creating a deleted article by creating it at a mis-spelling then moving it. I'd strongly suggest not only deletion but salting of this article name, the mis-spelt name and the hyphenated spelling. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism that has little hope of being neutral in point of view. Consider salting or otherwise semi-protecting, since this was re-created after AfD. Cnilep (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- If a gay person does something wrong we can`t even talk about it? See thought police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycjp (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Unsourced and almost certainly unsourceable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Clearly a neologism. Whether the term is a perjorative or not, or whether the term is potentially hateful have nothing to do with our inclusion criteria. The term is not discussed in reliable sources. Nothing else matters. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (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.