Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homonegativity

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 close. The article merger process for duplicate articles does not involve either AFD or the administrator deletion tool in any way or at any stage. Neither does turning an article into a redirect (or vice versa). This is a mis-use of AFD for something that ordinary editors can enact and discuss on talk pages without any need for administrator involvement or tools. AFD has quite enough traffic as it is, without wasting participant time and effort on things that don't even need a deletion tool at all and that editors can do for themselves. Also note that notability is not addressed solely with deletion nominations, and there are plenty of venues (such as appropriate WikiProjects) for seeking third opinions on disputed mergers without abusing AFD for that purpose. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homonegativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to heterophobia this seems to be a concept that was once on its way to becoming more than a neologism. Homonegativity is variously used - and a Homonegativity scale was even employed, a few times - but seemingly every use has been folded under what is commonly understood as homophobia. It seems there is little variance between the two even in scholarly usage. Homonegativity is just a neater or more plainly understood word than homophobia which is a faulty construct like other social -phobias like xenophobia, etc. It's a word that has generally gone out of use as homophobia has gotten the lion's share of attention.

We have a good explanation at heterosexism that places this issue in context:

Given this lack of semantic transparency, researchers, outreach workers, critical theorists and LGBT activists have proposed and use terms such as institutionalized homophobia, state(-sponsored) homophobia, sexual prejudice, anti-gay bigotry, straight privilege, The Straight Mind (a collection of essays by French writer Monique Wittig), heterosexual bias, compulsory heterosexuality or the much lesser known terms heterocentrism, homonegativity, and from gender theory and queer theory, heteronormativity.

So though there are reliable sources that have used the term, they conflict in what it means and how it's used. And they all seem to fold into homophobia which is a term that has become more widespread and inclusive. And this term doesn't seem to have any one definition that differentiates from homophobia, it's just a more rare term (among several as noted above) that's generally gone out of favor. So I think this still fails the notability threshold and if needed, WP:NOT. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I forgot to add that I think this should be deleted, with anything really notable possibly added to homophobia and a redirect to homophobia left in place. Insomesia (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator is actually proposing merger not deletion. Note that there are hundreds of scholarly papers about the topic. The extent to which this overlaps with other topics is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It seems like autism and autism spectrum, which are separate articles. Or xenophobia and chauvinism. And so on. Warden (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My explanation may have been too long here. I'm not really suggesting any merge because there is a lack of anything to merge except that this is a term that has been used in place of homophobia, but homophobia is a fine article needing no additional information. In fact it already acknowledges that this is one of several terms that has been used in place of homophobia but now doesn't seem to be needed. That is the nature of words. The sources that exist don't even agree on how this is any different than homophobia, they don't even agree with each other. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a well-sourced and lengthy article and clearly some people believe it's different to homophobia. Even if it has gone out of favour or is less widely used than "homophobia", those are not in themselves reason for deletion. A merge might be possible if both articles were shorter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually not well sourced or lengthy. And though some believe it is different there is no one agreement to how exactly it actually is different. The homophobia article is actually well sourced and lengthy and has no need to be shortened. There is nothing to merge, that's why I think a delete and redirect is appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.