Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexualist

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. --Core desat 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexualist

This appears to be a term coined by a character on a TV show. The only source is Urban Dictionary, which lists two different definitions, but both cite the TV show as their source. No reliable sources. Even ignoring that, it's a dictionary definition at best. Term gets a bunch of hits in Google, but no discussion of the definition of the term. Word doesn't appear in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Collins English Dictionary, or the Oxford Dictionary of English. eaolson 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonesense. Nardman1 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be re-written. One source here, which has nothing to do with the TV show, found after two seconds of Googling. Otto4711 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article itself contains two definitions and Otto's is neither of these. The word doesn't seem to be used in any consistent way and the topic itself, as far as I can tell from the links, is covered already at homophobia and/or homonegativity - how many different articles do we need on the topic? A redirect to one of these already existing ones may be appropriate if the term is deemed worthy. GassyGuy 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Need to show multiple non-trivial comments by reliable sources about the term (not just uses of it). WJBscribe 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBscribe --John Kenneth Fisher 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge with homosexual agenda. (Note that homosexualism redirects to homosexuality.) Term is a favorite of John Derbyshire who defines his version at length in the National Review (also). (To a smaller audience, it has also been popularized by iconoclastic comics artist/autodidact Dave Sim.[1]) Right-wing journals of note use the term incessantly.[2][3][4] It was used in a widely-publicized smear campaign.[5] This seems to be the modern political usage, anyway, but it goes back a number of years[6] and has been applied as criticism to authors and used by authors such as Cecil Beaton [7] Gore Vidal, cryptically.[8] Recent language mailing-list thread says OED cites go back to 1931[9]. The term is extensively defined in the book The Pink Swastika.[10] I think it deserves its own article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is actually true. I typed the term in on google and alsorts has come up. Here is the evidence. Now this damn debate can be closed and the tag be removed. See: [11]. And, [12]. Retiono Virginian 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This fails the speedy keep criteria. The nomination was valid -- the present state of the article is terrible. Though new sources have been brought up in debate, the article hasn't been revised. It definitely needs a thorough cleanup (removing the OR and urbandictionary stuff) and rewrite to sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything in this article that is relevant can be moved to homophobia, but Homosexualist is not a real word.--Sefringle 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that it is a neologism, fine. But it's clearly a "real word." It has letters and a definition and people use it in sentences and everything. Otto4711 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the section in the article that linked to Urban Dictionary was removed as a copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any way you dress it up, this is a dictionary definition of a neologism that has absolutely no sources. The sources suggested here seem to define the word differently than the article does. The article, it seems to me, defines a homosexualist as a person who, while not scared of homosexuals, discriminates based on sexual orientation, while it does not make it clear whom that person discriminates for or against. The sources here describe a homosexualist as a person who supports homosexuals as "the Elect" versus the "the Damned" who do not support them. I don't see any of that in the article. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be kept, and even in that case I would suggest a merge into something else, possibly homosexual agenda. The argument for speedy keep is clearly untenable, and the sources mentioned as "evidence" seem to be sources for something else. --Tractor kings fan 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Tractorkingsfan here; the current article is always going to be unreferenced, and the article that could be written from Dhartung's sources would probably be an unnecessary content-fork of homosexual agenda. — coelacan talk — 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly. Artw 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEO. The National Review article seems to define the term differently than this article, and that is one of the issues with neologisms and one of the reasons articles on neologisms are generally not a good idea.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism with no stable definition. —An gr 07:47, 9 February 2007 (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.