Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (3rd nomination)

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. And then redirect to Homophobia#"Heterophobia". Sandstein 06:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterophobia

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In looking for reliable sources to include content on this subject in the homophobia article I ran into some issues which give me cause that this article is not much more than a neologism that simply hasn't caught on. Of the reliable sources I found the term itself was used sparingly and in several different contexts that did not seem to agree on any notable definition. Looking outside reliable sources to what's used on the Internet, it seems that religious conservatives often define homosexuality by behavior; others often define homosexuality by sexual orientation; the use of 'heterophobia' follows that pattern, mainly confined to a narrow defining of 'homophobia' and then comparing 'heterophobia' to that corollary. Thus, I think this article might fail all four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Insomesia (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of your statements. --CJ Withers (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also left out that I did look at all the links on the talk page, mostly blogs proving that the word was used. If this article is deleted, I think a redirect link should point to homophobia where we try to document notable uses of this word only in relation as a corrolary to 'homophobia'. Insomesia (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Don't make the mistake of expecting anything like equivalent currency for the concepts homophobia and heterophobia. The former is a "big topic" of sociology, the latter is a "small topic." Still, when one runs a simple Google search and come up with 1.4 million hits for "heterophobia," one knows that there is a big enough iceberg to carve off a few reliable sources snowcones. See, for example, Daphne Patai's book, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. (HERE'S A REVIEW). And THIS PIECE, a 1999 conference presentation by Dr. Raymond J. Noonan of the Fashion Institute of Technology (SUNY) and Director, SexQuest/The Sex Institute, NYC, which indicates that the term "heterophobia" was then about 2 decades old, as opposed to "its more familiar [linguistic] sibling," homophobia, which scholars date to 1958. In short, if there are objections to the content here, fix it through the normal editing process, not through attempted annihilation at AfD. This is an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only expect reliable source that go to building an actual article. I concede that there are a few books that use the term but the same likely could be said for many words that simply haven't taken off. And 1.4 million hits in comparison to only a handful of reliable sources is an indication that it's use is limited to blogs which I also saw. I'm not looking to annihilate, the first thing I did was try to verify what the article stated, it was all over the place and was lacking in sources, primary or otherwise. And didn't use the ones it had accurately. If one definition has been in use for 20 years and still hasn't caught on then perhaps that's a sign? When I did a Google News search I found no reliable sources. Google Scholar brings up a few books/documents using the word but with different meanings. This matches the dilemma I faced months ago when I fist started looking into this. I think even comparing the two sources you cite you'll have two differing definitions. In short we have several books, some by the same authors, all using the term very sparingly - like only once in the title - and a workshop at a conference by one of those same authors. What is salvageable can be summed up at the homophobia article which is what I was trying to do in the first place and simply found little to really support the term. Insomesia (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could find you 12 greatly differing and at least partially contradictory definitions of "socialism" or "democracy" or "freedom" with little effort. That does not invalidate any of these as an encyclopedic subject. So, too, here. When there's a published monograph on a topic AND the topic, in a somewhat different context, has been used for decades in academia, there's more than enough justification (and more than enough available sourcing) to support a freestanding piece. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Differing definitions for "socialism" or "democracy" or "freedom" would be compared with due weight to what has actually been written on the subjects themselves. But this term has been used very little in any academia and there seems to be no one definition that has become notable. It's use in reliable sources is limited and with different definitions. And this is after it's been around a while, so I think it remains a neologism that has been largely ignored by academia. Possibly because it has no clear definition. Insomesia (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be clear dictionary definitions for the term, from my prowl of the internets. (1) Irrational fear of the opposite sex. (2) Irrational fear of heterosexuals. WP is not a dictionary and this is neither here nor there. The main use of the term in daily life seems as a polemical construct of the political and religious right to counterpose to "homophobia" — which is itself a highly politicized construct that has more to do with economic and social discrimination against a group rather than the dictionary definition of fear. There are other concrete uses of the term "heterophobia," to be sure. I find the article deficient for not concentrating upon its use as a polemical construct. That is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Owing to the politicization of the topic, there is a huge IDONTLIKEIT factor here which must be guarded against. The phrase is enormously prominent in public discourse and I find the piece as it stands sufficiently well sourced to pass GNG, regardless of its imperfections in terms of content. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Just want to clear things up, "heterophobia" is not a small topic but a NON-topics as there are no studies or reports on it. It simply doesn't exist and is posited otherwise by unreliable sources. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's AN AUSTRALIAN MP using "heterophobia" as a right wing attack phrase in the Brisbane Times. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentary from Huffington Post UK challenging the Right's use of "heterophobia" as a polemical counterpoint to "homophobia." Carrite (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it doesn't count towards GNG, this blog post is indicative that the question of "heterophobia" is a matter of some interest in the gay community. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The well-established right wing mag Human Events used the term in 2007 as a polemical opposite of "homophobia." A big majority of the 1.4 million hits seem to use the concept in this manner. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - These all seem like examples of the word being used rather than reliable sources about the concept. No one disputes the word has been used. Insomesia (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any of those sources explain what the concept is? If not, what relevance do they have to Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered recommending a very selective merge to homophobia to explain the use of the neologism by anti-gay activists, but after further examining available sources, I must go for delete. The term is used to mean a wide variety of things, none of which really have a significant amount of coverage and none of which are a distinct phenomenon (eg. Taguieff and Memmi use it to mean fear of the other, Noonan and Patai to mean sex-negativity, a lot of unreliable sources like Reisman etc. use it when complaining about equality for gay people - also, many in this last group use it in passing, failing "significant"). We can't make one title a redirect to multiple articles, but in no case is the use of the term sufficiently common to make a disambiguation page (which is more or less what the article is) appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completed that very merge several months ago, so I invite everyone to read that section of homophobia. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing to do with the notability test here, but the first line of the entry at RationalWiki isn't too bad: "Heterophobia is a neologism used as a snarl word to delegitimize the gay rights movement's campaign for equal treatment and an end to anti-gay bigotry." If I were working on this topic, which I'm not, that's the angle I would take towards sourcing it out. The piece as it stands clears GNG, in my estimation, but it deficient in that it ignores the real use of the concept. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The POV phrasing would need to be toned down, obviously. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- We need reliable sources to make the case, If you think this is a reliable source could you provide the link? If not then we have to wait until a reliable source publishes it. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The discussion at Homophobia#.22Heterophobia.22 is fully adequate in this regard and would make an okay redirect target. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the several years of decisions to do so, I put forward an unquestionable delete given that there are no studies whatsoever on "heterophobia" as actual discrimination or anything else. What's more, there are NO references on its existence. The onus is on those who vote to keep the article to prove that a reliable, unbiased study has been conducted. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Having reviewed C.J. Withers' subsection of homophobia mentioned above, I find that superior to and replicating all essentials of this freestanding piece. So a redirect towards Homophobia#.22Heterophobia.22 now strikes me as a better option than a keep here. Keep recommendation stricken. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - strip out the useful and reliably sourced stuff for the homophobia article, while keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind and then redirect this page to it. Blogs are not an excuse for reliable citations and this concept was clearly created to satirize or rival Homophobia. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mistook the "footnotes" section for citations so i have changed my original opinion to Delete ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:16, 31 July 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.