Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Straight (sexuality)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Straight (sexuality)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seems to be a very recently developed phrase with little support from reliable sources. If kept, may need a significant re-write. Singularity42 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super straight. This same topic is already covered at our /pol/ article and at Straight flag also. Non-notable fad term. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that other article. Agree with G4. Singularity42 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD is explicit that it doesn't prevent recreations at a future date - that doesn't feel like it facilitates a G4 to me? Best, Darren-M talk 16:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per wp:G4, WP:UNDUE, and just because it’s otherwise a terrible article that looks bad. Dronebogus (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to transphobia. There are a ton of sources from reliable secondary sources (i.e. The Atlantic) discussing this term and how it emerged on TikTok. Merge and redirect is an WP:ATD and will also help us avoid the possible re-creation of the article due to it's notability. Missvain (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty and already merged it into the transphobia article here. Missvain (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per WP:BRD. The source is very balanced and in no way calls it transphobic in their own voice. Likewise, ContraPoints, who is interviewed in part of the article, has a balanced approach and she does not call it that. Per WP:NPOV, it shouldn't be at that article as though it is undisputably transphobic in all uses. And besides, one could also argue it should be merged elsewhere like Attraction to transgender people. But it was a flash in the pan and already is covered at the "/pol/" article. It's just a non-noteworthy flash-in-the-pan meme (see WP:NOTNEWS). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some links to the sources you mention? If they are any good, may be we can add them to the article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources for this, very little content. Web fluff. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not worthy enough to warrant an article on its own, plus the use of "transsexual" in the article is outdated and looks bad. Despressso (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely devoid of references and the article itself admits it's a joke. Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 21:36, 26 December 2021 (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.