The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This article was created by the same editor ( DaddyCell ( talk · contribs)) who created the Heteropatriarchy article, and I was unsure whether to bundle the deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." My argument for the deletion of this article is the same as the one for the Heteropatriarchy article. This article falls in the neologism territory. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a major term in critical theory — an interdisciplinary field that crosses philosophy, political theory, gender studies and more. It grows out of Lisa Duggan's scholarship on the homonormative, and was developed by the scholar Jasbir Puar.This is not a neologism. Is is an important, operating concept with a growing bibliography behind it. It isn't unique to Puar's work, but can be found in the work of diverse scholars. (A simple google scholar search affirms this, producing 2,415 results on a search conducted just prior to posting this.) Note: Jasbir Puar's page has been subject to homophobic and racist vandalism. This query isn't, I hope related to that. Note: Homonormative has an entry, as it should. Judyholliday ( talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Judyholliday, given how neologism is defined, how is it that "homonationalism" is not a neologism? If "a relatively new or isolated term" applies, newness is not the only aspect. Furthermore, when one is talking about what is new in the literature, "new" can refer to things that that only came to be 20 or 30 years ago. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a useful term in use across a range of scholarship and within communities trying to understand, for example, how to navigate national response to the Orlando shooting — in which the vulnerability of LGBT people becomes a site for nationalist identification. There is a reason we are talking about the term right now. In any case words, at some point, were new. Words grow in meaning and importance in different ways — sometimes by common, wide use and sometimes by intense use within specific communities (academics, fans, technical workers etc.). Political pressures will mark some words, however, as less important than others: "homonationalism" grows from its use by people committed to thinking from queer-of-color-perspectives, thinking and working at the intersection of power dynamics re race, sex, and nation. Anyway, yes, at one point it was a neologism. At one point the word neologism was a neologism! Homonationalism is used by a large enough community which understands what it means that it is now a technical term of some importance, useful, in particular, for talking about pressing political issues in contemporary politics. Judyholliday ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This article was created by the same editor ( DaddyCell ( talk · contribs)) who created the Heteropatriarchy article, and I was unsure whether to bundle the deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." My argument for the deletion of this article is the same as the one for the Heteropatriarchy article. This article falls in the neologism territory. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a major term in critical theory — an interdisciplinary field that crosses philosophy, political theory, gender studies and more. It grows out of Lisa Duggan's scholarship on the homonormative, and was developed by the scholar Jasbir Puar.This is not a neologism. Is is an important, operating concept with a growing bibliography behind it. It isn't unique to Puar's work, but can be found in the work of diverse scholars. (A simple google scholar search affirms this, producing 2,415 results on a search conducted just prior to posting this.) Note: Jasbir Puar's page has been subject to homophobic and racist vandalism. This query isn't, I hope related to that. Note: Homonormative has an entry, as it should. Judyholliday ( talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Judyholliday, given how neologism is defined, how is it that "homonationalism" is not a neologism? If "a relatively new or isolated term" applies, newness is not the only aspect. Furthermore, when one is talking about what is new in the literature, "new" can refer to things that that only came to be 20 or 30 years ago. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a useful term in use across a range of scholarship and within communities trying to understand, for example, how to navigate national response to the Orlando shooting — in which the vulnerability of LGBT people becomes a site for nationalist identification. There is a reason we are talking about the term right now. In any case words, at some point, were new. Words grow in meaning and importance in different ways — sometimes by common, wide use and sometimes by intense use within specific communities (academics, fans, technical workers etc.). Political pressures will mark some words, however, as less important than others: "homonationalism" grows from its use by people committed to thinking from queer-of-color-perspectives, thinking and working at the intersection of power dynamics re race, sex, and nation. Anyway, yes, at one point it was a neologism. At one point the word neologism was a neologism! Homonationalism is used by a large enough community which understands what it means that it is now a technical term of some importance, useful, in particular, for talking about pressing political issues in contemporary politics. Judyholliday ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)