Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific homophobia


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific homophobia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

unreferenced original research RadioFan (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete RadioFan's three word argument sums it up well, plus the article name itself screams "POV". Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: seven Google book results, and six Google Scholar results. Verifiability (WP:V) could be established. Mephistophelian (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Look at those references, and you will see the same phrasing in several snippets: "traditional scientific homophobia" and "scientific homophobia in turn". These are the same texts appearing in several different sources.  What we have is two words that fall next to one another a few times in the literature.  What we don't have is in depth discussion of "scientific homophobia" as a discrete topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Google is a tool which is useful in locating coverage in reliable sources but it is not a scoreboard As Cullen328 mentions, those hits are brief mentions of the phrase and in some cases simply have the two words adjacent to each other.  I found these same mentions before bringing the article here but did not find them to relavant as the concept is not the focus of the coverage in the book or doesn't appear to be related to the concept presented (briefly) in this article.--RadioFan (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Two vapid lines, sans sourcing. A dictionary definition of a turn of phrase so obscure that it doesn't even rise to the level of "neologism." This snippet isn't going to explain anything to anyone. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cullen328 and Carrite as being no more than a dictionary definition of a non-notable concept. --Lambiam 09:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOT/WP:NOTSOAPBOX or Redirect to somewhere with actual content, such as Homosexual behavior in animals. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with Mephistophelian; this article is about an important subject and it not should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viramag (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment if you feel it is important, please address the concerns raised here. Please expand the article and include citations to reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I should point out that I didn't advocate a Keep. Both Cullen328 and RadioFan made valid points concerning the sources. Mephistophelian (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - this topic is verifiable, and a few good sources can be found, but it does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:FRINGE. Currently, it is merely one sentence, and, at least now, can't be much expanded. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Some does appear to be some science studies related to this topic. A quick search came up with:
 * Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug; 105(3):440-5.
 * Bernat JA, Calhoun KS, Adams HE, Zeichner A. Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001 Feb; 110(1):179-87.
 * Ernulf KE, Innala SM. The relationship between affective and cognitive components of homophobic reaction. Arch Sex Behav. 1987 Dec; 16(6):501-9.


 * But I think these could be simply incorporated into homophobia, if needed there at all. -Atmoz (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Those articles don't look like they're on the same subject as the article - the article is about (well it's one sentence but anyways) homophobia justified by pseudoscience. Those appear to be about homophobia itself. OSbornarfcontribs. 23:43, 7 May 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.