Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3abos (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 13 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:58, 13 February 2013 by 3abos (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. WP:SNOWBALL, Delete, restore redirect. and protect. j⚛e decker 07:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia

AfDs for this article:
Heterophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Massively POV. Rife with soapboxing phrases like simply refer to marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, linked to the degradation of religious liberty, and imperialist agenda. Is there any conceivable good article that could be made out of this? It's within the realm of possibility. Is there anything salvageable in the page history? No. I'm half-inclined to G11 this as completely promotional of an anti-gay point of view. (Or would that be heterophobic of me?) Seeing as the far more objective Homophobia#"Heterophobia" already exists, I propose we revert to Sandstein's redirect to that section, and fully protect the page until and unless someone can propose an objective version that passes WP:42 (since really, the way I see it, the section in the Homophobia article does the job well enough). — PinkAmpers& 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nonnotableneologismomania. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - This does not exist as an actual phobia. Much like "white history month", a protest-oriented neologism does not deserve a standalone article unless the term itself it the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore the redirect and protect from editing. Rubbish. All this discussion illustrates is that besides "exact recreation of consensus-deleted content," perhaps we should have a provision for "much worse than consensus-deleted content." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore the redirect and protect from editing - This article is going to be an attack page, neutrality is going to be a real big issue there. Unless the page reach a recreation consensus, and stand on protect status, it may remain offensive and blatant. Eduemoni 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect and salt per all above. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore the redirect and protect from editing - as suggested. Just plain silly. Stalwart111 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong delete When I read the nom I wanted to vote delete, but then I figured given the unanimity of the !vote even without me it wasn't necessary. Then I checked the article. It really is a disgusting piece of propaganda, and I loved the sloppy/slightly plagiaristic quote-without-a-citation. I added the citation just for fun (I've seen similar problems on other articles, and I've gotten pretty good at finding the sources). Then I realized that if I didn't come here and !vote for deletion it would look like I was actively trying to improve/defend the article. So here I am. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
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.
  • 'Keep This is just absolutely disgusting. All the references where deleted for a couple of hours. Then people start complaining there are no references, then the article is deleted. I am absolutely disgusted, absolutely disappointing at this discrimination and lack of neutrality that has infected Misplaced Pages.3abos (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This suppression of freedom of speech is very frightening. Heterophobes will continue to persecute heterosexuals and wikipedia does the same. 3abos (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)