Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acephobia

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acephobia

[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)

The term acephobia is barely used in WP:Reliable sources. The term is a neologism; see WP:NEO. The article relies on sources that don't use the term, and on unreliable or poor sources that do...such as medium (website)...with Gay Star News being an exception (as a decent source using the term). Some of the content in the article was taken from the "Discrimination and legal protections" section of the Asexuality article. The Acephobia article is very small, and what is here can be easily regulated to the aforementioned section of the Asexuality article; see WP:No page. If the article is to be kept, it should be retitled "Discrimination against asexual people" or "Discrimination against asexuality," similar to Discrimination against non-binary gender people, Discrimination against intersex people, Discrimination against atheists, Discrimination based on skin color, etc. And the unreliable and other poor sources should be removed, along with the associated text unless better sources can be used in their place. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom suggests a series of editorial options, none of which require deletion. Whatever you want to call the page, the topic is valid and can be expanded. If the plan is to merge it, fine, but then this would be a redirect as a valid search term. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, yeah, on Adam9007's talk page, I saw that you accepted this article for creation via WP:Articles for creation. Per above, I obviously don't agree that it should have been accepted. I know that many editors are unfamiliar with WP:No page or fail to consider it, but this is very much a WP:No page case. At the very least, sourcing like medium (website) should not have been allowed to stand and the article should have been retitled per WP:Neo and WP:Precise. Deletion discussions can also involve merge votes. I'll see what others have to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources any better? Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 4 good sources from [1] that use the term, going back a few years. Yes it is a new term, but is used fairly widely and in RS contrary to the nom's assertion. I am well aware of WP:NOPAGE. Again, if a merge is desired, that is an editorial decision, but claiming this title needs deletion is not correct. I'm guessing User:Adam9007 also wants to keep the page. Legacypac (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, no, it is not "used fairly widely," as a simple Google search shows, whether on regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. You mention sources on Wiktionary.org. I only see three sources there, and there is nothing substantial in this issuu.com source about the term acephobia or in the others. Passing mentions do not make a term WP:Notable, as many deletion discussions have proven. Adam9007 already added a source where some random person states, "I now give asexual workshops, screen the film (A)sexual with a postfilm discussion, and try to have conversations with my friends and colleagues about asexual identity and acephobia." In what way do you think that this shows WP:Notability with regard to the term? Indeed, per WP:Neo and WP:Precise the article should not be titled "Acephobia" and a WP:Requested moves discussion would no doubt close with that conclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that source useful. I do find the sources I added useful. You have not advanced an arguement to delete the page, you seem to want to move it. This is AfD not a requested move discussion. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the sources you added useful? They are passing mentions that do not establish the notability of the term and are being used in somewhat of a WP:Synthesis way -- meaning when they are used to support material that is not stated in the sources. One was already in the article and so is redundant and is empty inflation. You are arguing that we should keep the article. I am arguing that we should not keep it, which is why I started this AfD. And, again, AfDs can involve redirect and/or merge votes, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia, which I also started, did. As for moving the article, I am arguing that if it is to be kept, it should not be kept under the current title. I am arguing that the term is not WP:Notable. That this article relies on the sources it relies on and exists under a non-WP:Notable term is argument enough to delete or merge it. If merged, only the content not already in the Asexuality article and the material not poorly sourced should be kept. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Legacypac is saying is that although AfD discussions can result in move or merge, if it's one of those you're seeking then you should instead use WP:RM or {{merge to}} respectively. Even if the term is not (yet) notable, I'd be very surprised if the topic also isn't. Adam9007 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Legacypac is saying. If you are open to a merge, good. I felt that you would be against one and fight me on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, university sources and activist sources (whether programs, their own studies, etc.) like these are not good sources to use. And it's still "in passing" use. I would retain none of these sources. Some of this material would not be retained in a merge; I would cut some of it. It's safe to state that if you have to go to a university's website and reference their graduate thesis/study (a WP:Primary source) just to find another use of the term acephobia, the term is non-WP:Notable. Rainbowcoalitionyk.org is not a WP:Reliable source. It is "an outreach organization based in Yellowknife that works to support 2SLGBTQQIPAA youth in the Northwest Territories." Artificial inflation of the article does not make it better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the term "acephobia" is sufficiently notable, the concept of discrimination against asexuals is. Moving the page to "Discrimination against asexual people" would probably be for the best, while keeping acephobia as a redirect. Linguistical (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Linguistical, remember to sign your username when commenting on the talk page. I've signed it for you. As for "the concept of discrimination against asexuals" being WP:Notable, there is little material on the matter, which is why I suggested a merge. Anthony Appleyard moved the article during this AfD without weighing in here, and that move obviously gives this article a better chance of being kept. Anyway, time for me to start cutting the article and removing the WP:Synthesis and poor sources. If the article is kept now that it's been moved to a proper title, I will likely start a merge discussion RfC on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with the title move, and cleanup of the article by me, seen here (followup edits here and here), I've withdrawn the AfD nomination. I now feel better about the article existing and will give it time to develop before proposing a merge. Take note, though, that since study of asexuality is slow-moving, more research on discrimination against asexual people will take years. In the meantime, there will be reliable media commentary on the topic. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (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.