Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmisogyny


 * 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 Keep. (non-admin closure)  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Transmisogyny

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic is covered in Transphobia, no discussion has taken place at Talk:Transphobia and therefore there is no consensus to make this a separate article rather than expand coverage in the existing article. Article was previously a redirect to the existing article. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - see also the discussion which resulted in merging Transprejudice into Transphobia, as the arguments are likely to be similar. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The transphobia article doesn't cover transmisogyny. It just gives a very short, inadequate definition. That's not coverage. If you call that coverage and grounds for transphobia being the article on transmisogyny, then there are at least 5 other articles that should also be the sole article covering transmisogyny. This is utterly ridiculous. No concensus was ever made that transphobia should be *the* article for transmisogyny instead of transmisogyny. Why do I need to seek consensus to "undo" a supposed "consensus" that never happened in the first place? It's common wikipedia policy to have the article name reflect the article topic. transmisogyny is a significant article and merging it into transphobia would completely derail that page. Alyxr (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge back It's a neologism that is a slightly different spin on transphobia and has few relevant references actually using or explaining it. I'm sure there are five or six more synonyms, but does each one get an article? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested and per Bearian (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CHEAP is utterly non-applicable. Alyxr (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "I'm sure there are five or six more synonyms" there aren't, so your point is moot. Alyxr (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Fails all four points for merging in WP:MERGE.109.153.191.132 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that the suggested merger seems to fail the points as listed above. Additionally, I'd be more than happy to help improve both articles, if that's at all at issue. I think a short section giving an overview of transmisogyny in the transphobia page (but with a link to a full article) would do quite well. Huxley G (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments and there is sufficient reason to think the scholarship will only expand coverage of both concepts. Sadads (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above users. Stamboliyski (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. It's also misleading to suggest this article is deleteable because the creator did not seek consensus for the fork. There is no policy requiring this; it's perfectly common for the discussion to take place after the fork has been created. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The information in the nomination is incorrect. It is not covered in the other article. It should not be merged as it is its own topic. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2014 (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.