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. Nothing has been presented to refute or address the argument that this is POV OR. Coredesat 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homofascism[edit]

Homofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research - may be remarkable as a phenomenon, but it has not often been described using this term. One of the main google links is to the same website as the fifth link in the 'Examples' section - under a heading "Is homofascism really a word?" Avruch^Talk 05:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. The subject may or may not be notable, but that doesn't mean any term coined to describe it gets an article. - Koweja (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a worthy phenomenon with many reported incidences. The Wikipedia:Avoiding Neologisms page seems to describe "some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society." as being acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. For an article I just wrote, I already included four examples, examples of its usage on the internet, etc. I would at least allow time for expanding this article. Jakes18 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (That should be Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms)
• Delete as hopelessly POV. That the creator chose to include the article in Category:Fascism is pretty revealing in that respect. The article does not meet any speedy deletion criterion but a snowball delete might be in order. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A POV page can be edited to remove apparent bias. Rather than demanding a delete for a term with which you may not be comfortable, why not edit the article to address the supposed point-of-view expressed? Jakes18 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I used the term "hopelessly POV". This can't be fixed: it's a term rarely used in any sort of academic context. The article defines it as a term used "to describe the silencing and persecution of those opposed the GLBT rights movement", which could be rewritten as "homofascism is a term occasionally used by rabid conspiracy theorists on a handful of fundamentalist christian websites who imagine that they are being targeted by the gay mafia". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, for examples of articles on neologisms (or newer / rarer terms) which WEREN'T deleted, try Homocon, Potato Queen, DL Thug, and Trans-bashing. Jakes18 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One Google book entry and one Google news entry, lots of blogs:

• Only Google News entry: Nation's eyes on Christian protesters - Four who disrupted a... $2.95 - Philadelphia Inquirer - NewsBank - Jan 12, 2005 "This homofascism has come to our doorstep; it's in America," said Ralph Ovadal, head of Wisconsin Christians United, in a recent radio program. ...
• One Google Book entry: Political Inversions: Homosexuality, Fascism, & the Modernist Imaginary - Page 63 by Andrew Hewitt - Literary Criticism - 1996 - 333 pages To this extent, then, we can see how models we have set up as potentially dichotomous in Adorno's presentation of homofascism—narcissism and ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Untrue. The title of the second citation uses the term; it may be a blog entry, but this vouches for its existence. The third and fourth links are from an article entitled "From Homophobia to Homofascism", on a popular Christian site; and the fifth includes the term "homofascism" in the comments, again vouching for its existence. --Jakes18 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Blogs don't count toward notability. I could invent a new word right now and start 10 blogs and use the word. It has to come from Google Books or Google News or Google Scholar. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A neologism with no widespread use that I can find. Nick mallory (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable new term that has been widely used, discussed, and critcized. JJL (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." Diego (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just added the other (academic) meaning of the term (which appears in academic texts), namely connections between homosexuality and fascism made by Adorno and the like, while keeping separating the disputed political meaning into a section of the article. --Jakes18 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't escape the feeling that you don't really know who Theodor W. Adorno is or what his ideas on this subject were. (Read e.g. Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Fascism_and_homosexuality_in_the_Left_imagination) There is simply no link between this and the term homofascism as it is used in this article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I SEPARATED the "political" meaning of the term from the "academic" meaning. Please read the entire article if you wish to make judgments on it. I wrote "Homofascism is also used, in a separate sense..." before giving the political meaning, from when I first put the mention of the Frankfurt School on the page. Thank you. --Jakes18 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it should be kept. It describes known phenomenon. Article needs some changes, but should stay. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated the other 'kept' neologism for deletion, thanks to Jakes18 for pointing them out. Avruch^Talk 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV neologism. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Under "Articles on neologisms" please note:

There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion).

Massive OR, unreliable sources and the misuse of sources contrary to their purpose. The Google book link isn't about Homofascism but the treatment gays have received under facism. The link to the Queer Theory conference shows that the person who did the OR has no understanding of the contexts in which the paper was presented, nor does the ed. have the paper and cannot cite the authors conclusion on the subject. If one could actually cite Adorno, they would see that it is a connection to between being gay and actually being a fascist - having to do with typology and aporia. There are academic sources which treat with subject but not in the way the article suggests. There is not one reliable resource on this whole page, academic or political. Google stats are not appropriate for as research, one as their irrelvant in an encyclopedic article; two, they're original research. Phyesalis (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per many of the reasons above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (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.