Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heterophobia

Heterophobia was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-18. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18.

Delete I'm nominating this again, because I still do not see any validity in the term outside of homophobic groups who think that the idea gays and lesbians acheiving equal rights would somehow affect heterosexuals. Revolución 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete notable, but a really a dicdef - anything more will doubtless be covered elsewhere --Doc (?) 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination explains notability. Encyclopedic topic. Kappa 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think there is much more to add to the article than this dicdef.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Delete despite a prior VfD this article is still little more than a uncited dictionary definition and this seems unlikely to change. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this encyclopedic topic. This is a well-written stub. --Infobacker 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Kappa said; btw, we've got a nice example at biphobia as to something which has grown into an article Lectonar 13:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Seth Mahoney 14:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, but mostly because I'm a language stickler. Heterophobia combines the prefix hetero- (other, different) with the suffix -phobia (fear, dislike). Thus, heterophobia should mean "fear of things that are different", or something similar. Heterosexophobia (or something similar) would be a more appropriate term. Sadly, homophobia (which should mean fear of things that are the same or uniform) has taken on the meaning that should be covered by homosexophobia and is wide-spread enough that we must be forced to adopt the new meaning. Heterophobia, however, is not a wide-spread word and I don't see the need for an article promoting the misuse of the word until general use has forced us to. Maybe that's a good reason to delete, maybe it's not. I don't know, but that's the way I feel. --Pagrashtak 15:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Pagrashtak, that's a terrible reason to delete, and would at best be a reason to rename. These accusations of heterophobia exist and have to be treated somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Morwen - Talk 15:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Almost 10000 Google hits, and 5 books found on Amazon featuring heterophobia in the title http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/104-5317081-3720754?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Heterophobia&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go etablishes noteriety. However, from a quick reading on the subject, heterophobia is used to describe fear of the opposite sex in the medical community, not fear of heterosexuals. This article needs to be rewritten, but should exist. Lyuokdea 5:00 July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. In fact, -phobia defines heterophobia as fear of the opposite sex, as did a few pschology-related sites I found after a google search. --Pagrashtak 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The term does, however, get used in the way the article describes, so that definition clearly needs to be maintained in the article in some capacity. Bearcat 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as now written goes beyond a dicdef. The accusation may be baseless most of the time, but the fact that it's made as often as it is establishes notability. Doctor Whom 17:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and real condition if rare.Gateman1997 17:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I believe that all usage is either waggish or questionable, but given that homoerotophobia gave way to the barbarism homophobia about twenty-five years ago, this form follows, and offensive or waggish usage is still usage. Robert A West 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Lyuokdea pointed out, the only thing wrong with the article is that it's describing the phobia incorrectly. I vote that the page is revamped, but kept. Nihiltres 20:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Clearly a significant topic. CalJW 20:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting keep once again. My opinion has not changed since previous vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a neologism. Nandesuka 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A book has been written on the topic and there is widespread usage, so not a non-notable neologism. Valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant term, not a neologism. Sietse 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a neologism, but a somewhat widely-used one. LexisNexis found a few recent uses of it, including a headline from a San Francisco Chronicle review and the first paragraph of a The Spectator article. CDC (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per CDC. --Idont Havaname 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neologism is not sufficient justification for deletion (for instance, inclusion of 'podcasting' etc is exceptionally useful) - nor is a dislike of the usage of a word. --Labbis 19:23, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.