Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-bashing

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 No consensus. Whilst there were a large number of opinions along the Merge and/or Redirect routes, many of these were added before the article was substantially improved and more importantly referenced, and as such it should at least be given more time. If, after allowing that further amount of time, there are still significant concerns about the article, then it can always be referred back here. BLACKKITE 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-bashing

This neologism article has no sources/references or assertion of notability. It may be that it is notable, but its adherence to WP:N is not established and the article hasn't been edited since 6/07. Avruch ^Talk 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bashing (pejorative): This is a non-notable neologism, and there is no need for a separate article. What next?....Anything, and everything gets "bashed". - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Would also support it being redirected to Transphobia. Lankiveil (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Gay bashing, which already professes to cover LGBT bashing in general. I think that "tranny bashing" (I've never heard the term "trans-bashing") is notable enough for its own article, but I don't have the time now to expand that article with history and instances, and the gay bashing article is short enough that a merge-in shouldn't hurt it. It may not be necessary to have a seperate article for the trans issue (although if anyone can expand the trans article, I'll change to keep). Kolindigo (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, What is there to merge though? The article in its current state boils down to "(neologism) is victimising transsexuals". There's nothing there particularly about violence at this article, which leads me to believe a merge to Gay Bashing would be inappropriate. As I said above, I don't see how "Trans-bashing" is different to "Transphobia", and if there is going to be a merge or a redirect, it should go there. Lankiveil (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Transphobia and add a link to it in Gay bashing --ZacBowling^talk 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into gay bashing. While I like ZacBowling's suggestion, that is the more similar topic, and transphobia is linked in the sidebar template and could be linked inside the merged content as well. Gay bashing is also a (surprisingly) slim article, that probably survived a previous threat by getting a ton of "further reading" that nobody ever bothered to incorporate into an improved article. I fail to see a substantive difference between the two types of harassment and suspect it is largely one of opportunity as well as indifferentiation by the bashers. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transphobia. Article doesn't add anything to the latter. --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transphobia, not gay bashing (trans people are not necessarily gay people). Keep, per Benjiboi's and my comments below. Fireplace (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Valid phrase, and semi-notable. Notable enough for at least a redirect to Transphobia as suggested. • Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep or merge per Lawrence Cohen. Rescue? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Transphobia, it would be nice if a source could be cited for the "There are those who believe.." sentence. --Stormie (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transphobia - it's pretty content-free and I don't really see much point in it - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transphobia No evidence that this is an actual term aside from the "hey, you can stick these words together!" aspect. Keep the redirect just in case someone does look for the term; redirects are cheap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into gay bashing, which already mentions transgendered victims. It's a notable term and a notable phenomenon (try googling on it). 81.168.80.170 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transphobia, not gay bashing. Trans issues are not synonymous with "gay". Phyesalis (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Transphobia seems the best option I see. Not much here to salvage. Pigman☿ 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Transphobia per above, since the neologism itself does not warrant a page. GlassCobra 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nonsense. trans-bashing is a well-used phrase and concept in LGBT communities and reliable sources are readily available including 800+ hits in Google, 600+ in Google scholar, and nearly 200 in Google books here and here. If the new rules are that an article has to be edited within the last 5-6 months then we have a lot of deleting to do. Article should have been tagged for notability and sources not AfD. Per WP:AfD if an article can be improved with regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Benjiboi 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep per Benjiboi. Trans-bashing isn't as commonly heard about as gay-bashing, but there are plenty of reliable sources establishing that this is a real, discrete, and notable phenomenon. Brandon Teena and the film Boys Don't Cry are standout examples. I've added more content to the article as well. Fireplace (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added quite a bit of sourced content. Fireplace (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm happy to help if needed but instead am addressing another AfD. Please feel free to message on talk if any assistance is needed. Benjiboi 04:16, 30 November 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.