Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisexual erasure

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual erasure

A short article on what appears to be a minor neologism, judging from the references and extremely low Google count (237 unique, a goodly number of which are simply references or spam links back to the same paper by Kenji Yoshino). There is precious little evidence that this term extends much beyond Kenji, the author who coined the term six years ago, and the paper in which he coined it. Guy 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - simply by going back and looking at the article in question again, I immediate see one other paper and one editorial listed in the reference sections that use variants of the phrase in question, which help establish its use in common speech --

"Sexual Prejudice: The erasure of bisexuals in academia and the media" Hutchins, Loraine American Sexuality magazine Volume 3, No. 4 (2005)
"Dear Fellow Non-existent Beings: countering current attempts to erase bisexuality", Bialogue

Do we have articles on other terms which are used in one paper, referenced in a couple of others? I can recall deleting some, but I can't call to mind any articles on terms matching these criteria. Guy 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the term gains notability it can certainly be recreated. This isn't a place to advertise your neologism in hopes it gains acceptance.--Crossmr 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it was one paper is not of itself an issue, because that paper was picked up by many learned journals. To me this is evidence of at least being on the right side of the notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle
Very Strong Keep. It has wide currency in daily speech within the American (possibly others?) Bisexual community.

Comment - I have no idea what came first, the paper by Kenji Yoshino or it's informal use in everyday speech, (but I suspect the latter). However, when I created this article it was because of the phrase's daily use in speech, not because of the paper, (which I've never read). I also find it ironically amusing that someone else is once again striving to "Erase" another sign of the often marginalized Bisexual community which is in a continual struggle with segments of both the straight and the mainstream lesbian & gay community to even be acknowledged as existing, (if interested see my Rant on this very subject here).CyntWorkStuff 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling someone would come up with that canard. My intent here is to remove an article on a term which appears to have very limited currency (per Google test). The concept may be notable, and there may be a notable term for it, but I don't see much evidence of widespread currency of this term. Guy 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is used within the Bi community, the Gay community, and was in a paper in the Stanford Law Review. I'm puzzled at how a term that was used in such a noted scholarly journal, and which has been used in later scholarly discussions, can even be considered for deletion from Wikipedia. CaveatLector^Talk 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism per nom, paranoid usage of language. Ghey has once been deleted in spite of 400,000 google hits, for being a neologism. withdrawn. though just word usage IMHO. User:Yy-bo 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no harm in keeping this. It would be very ironic if it is erased. -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a commonly used phrase in the LGBT and allied communities. Why would you delete it? Larry 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of its being "commonly used"? The very low unique Google count indicates otherwise. Guy 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above Jdclevenger 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons already given. --Chips Critic 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above Funky Monkey (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm unfamiliar with the term, but recognise the concept. I think the article needs some editing/adding to to recognise that the term is an attempt to give a name to a event/situation. It's possible that in the long run a different term will be the one that gains widespread currency, but if bisexual erasure is recognised and has been used in published media, then start with that, but with recognition that the term is not yet in widespread use and may be an Americanism. Certainly "bisexual erasure" happens - both lesbian/gay and straight communities do it, which makes it somewhat different from the phenomenon of "recloseting" (is there a wiki entry for that?) - pretending that people for whom there is sound evidence are LGB were straight. "Recloseting" is a form of heterosexism, but "bisexual erasure" can be heterosexism or can be the conviction that people ought to fit into exactly two categories - gay/lesbian or straight, no half measures. This is a known and documented phenomenon, and worth having an entry for on wikipedia. (My cultural background, FWIW, is UK-LGBT.) Yonmei 10:44, 10 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.