- 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, this is going nowhere but the bitbucket. Guy 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admitted neologism, and silly to boot. Several references to blogs and forum posts. 54 google hits. Delete as WP:NEO. 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Homophobophobia is a legitimate issue, as can be verified below and therefore this topic has reason for receiving a voice. The primary objective of this article is to expose colloquial refferences made by the general public, not those in blogs or forums.
- An example of homophobophobia is deleting this thoroughly thought out and thoroughly researched article without discussion or attempts to improve it. The author made a tenacious attempt to purge all traces of attacks, vanity, spam, and nonsense from this piece. If ones political or otherwise biased views cause this article to appear to be “utter nonsense,” one is encouraged to make the necessary changes to improve said piece in this regard.
- Please feel free to edit for the purposes of improving non-biased accuracy, as well as removing bias itself. Current information as contained is not based on original research.
- For those who have doubts as to the usefulness of this article and the definitions and disambiguation therein, may freely consult [1], in which you will discover an entire page of “philias.” If, therefore, the English language is capable of producing such a great many forms of sexual expression, love, and risk-taking, then one must equally acknowledge an equally numerous set of phobias, if not in greater quantity, regardless of their relation to sexuality, the evidence of which can be seen bellow.
- One may also be referred to [2] for further guidance. You are advised to refrain from vandalizing this wikipedia article.
- (homophobophobia is related, but not identical, as the definition suggests)
- Changes have been made to comply with quality standards. Please note the purpose being to expose a possibly decade old word, or perhaps one coined shortly after the word "heterophobia", or before. Clearly more research can be done to correct this problem, and it will easily be done pending contributions by the many Wikipedia editors available.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techron (talk • contribs) Reformatted for readability by bikeable (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: The MSNBC article mentions it, but as a made up word. One article mentions the word, but to link to this very new article... mmm... -- lucasbfr talk 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I get 54 unique Google hits on homophobophobia. I have looked at the article references, and they contain a variety of different meanings (as the article indicates.) I think this word hasn't caught on sufficiently to have an established meaning. And when it does... it will belong over in the Wiktionary, not here. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP is not a dictionary --Mnemeson 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I see no reasonable possibility of the expansion of this page past mere dicdef status. No objection to a transwiki to Wiktionary.
Note: If this is deleted, please remember to clean up all the redirects and references to this which user:Techron has aggressively added to sex-related articles across Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] - It's hard to defend this entry on one level, as indeed the word seems to be having a hard time settling into one of two "obvious" meanings. On the other hand, Techron's criticism of the uncritical acceptance of other sexual pseudo-terminological entries is not unfounded. For instance, out of pure dumb chance I lit upon agonophilia. Here we see the wikipedia internet power dynamic at work, because the word would seem to have two somewhat conflicting definitions. And furthermore, most references to one of those meanings trace back to Wikipedia itself. Thus it appears that one of the reasons to delete this entry is to prevent it from establishing the word with a specific meaning. I say Delete, but not with any great conviction. Mangoe 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as a nonsense nologism. --Musaabdulrashid 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I predict even more complex neologisms will be created after car and cdr idiom. Pavel Vozenilek 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the six sources in the article, two are personal blogs, one is a letter to the editor, one is a tripod site, and two are forum posts. That makes the article unverified, because there aren't any reliable sources. Add to that the fact that the article isn't more than a dictionary definition, and a neologism, the case is pretty clear. ColourBurst 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete And don't I have neologismphobia. Buckner 1986 05:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete of half-witted article. An article on "Homophobophobophobia" is the logical progression. Pathlessdesert 10:34, 6 September 2006 (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.