Deletion of Gayphobia

Comment: or '''Merge''' to {{no redirect|Discrimination against gay men}} (per discussion below){{snd}}this is a vogue word of French origin (coined by :fr:Daniel Welzer-Lang, afaict) that achieved some usage in English, mostly in translated works, but never really caught on. In google ngrams, the term https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gayphobia does not register at all. (Compare with ngram results for https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gayphobia,eonism,gynemimesis,andromimesis,gynandrism&year_start=1920&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1;,eonism;,c0;.t1;,gynemimesis;,c0;.t1;,andromimesis;,c0;.t1;,gynandrism;,c0 some other rare terms.) In books, of the top 10 most relevant results for the term, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=gayphobia only 3 unique results actually contain the term (1. Kirst-Ashman (2013), 2. Tin (2008)-a https://books.google.com/books?id=aK02DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT257 French article by Guillaume Huyez, quoting five footnotes, all French; and 3. "Out" mag (Jun 2005)-a quotation by Anne Roiphe). It's telling that result #6 is there because it's another "Out" volume that indexes the same Roiphe quotation as #3. (The fact that Google books includes two magazine results in the top ten, is a very strong indicator that results in actual books are almost non-existent.) Result #7 is a false positive&mdash;it does indeed contain the word, but as one of the "wrong answers" in a multiple-choice quiz question about "prejudice towards homosexuality".  Three results in books is an incredibly low bar, and you can find all sorts of dreck that have three results in books but don't deserve their own article at Wikipedia; ''pussy phobia'' (4 results), ''fagphobia'' (5), and so on. It's a little harder to pick out the exact count of academic articles that use the term, but looking at the https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=gayphobia top 10 results in Scholar, there seem to be less than ten results with the term, because normally you wouldn't get three "citation" results in the top ten, unless the term was practically non-existent. In the seven results that are articles containing the term, I see Italian journals or with Italian authors (two), Indonesian (two), leaving three English; #2 is by co-author D Welzer-Lang (French, the coiner), #3 is by C Fraïssé (French?), and one possibly original English article (TF Reed, 1989; 1 citation to it).  This is underwhelming, as evidence for the term.  On the web, the top ten results for the query https://www.google.com/search?q=gayphobia+-wikipedia gayphobia -wikipedia shows mostly definition pages and Wikipedia mirrors; result #10 (indiegogo) is about Uganda. However search aficionados will know that the "20,100" hit count listed on search page one is a relevance tally that doesn't mean the pages actually contain the term; to see the actual number of pages containing it, page forward to result page #10 and you will see that there are actually about https://www.google.com/search?q=gayphobia+-wikipedia&start=90 94 pages on the web with this term. That is an incredibly small number for the internet; most misspellings have more than that (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22homopobia%22&start=160 ''homopobia'' has 163). The internet is a big place, it's not hard to find a few dozen examples of your favorite word, no matter what it is. Plus, in the academic world, it's a crowded, publish-or-perish field; you can't blame somebody for trying a neologism to see if it catches on. Usually they don't, and this one clearly did not.  Wikipedia is |not an indiscriminate collection of everything findable on the internet; that said, if this word starts to gather legitimate references in scholarly articles (in English), or in books (in English), or on the web in reliable, non-SPS sources, then it could be considered for inclusion. But it falls far short of that standard in 2021
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: this POV shit. It's a  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: This is a  of Homophobia. What little most of the sources say on 'gayphobia' is not significant coverage of gayphobia ''as a distinct topic'' rather than a mere definition of a neologism. See  and . https://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/JCDP/article/viewFile/2046/pdf This is a  study, not a secondary source. Anyone who asserts this is an encyclopedic separate topic is welcome to post 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:NOTDICT||WP:NEO||WP:PRIMARY||WP:THREE)

Comment: per discussion below to Discrimination against gay men). When I redirected the page to Homophobia this was poorly sourced (including mostly dictionary definitions and a source to an employers EDI statement!). The sourcing is still not great and I'm concerned about potential  violations, as many sources refer back to the Homophobia term. Clearly a person who is gay is not necessarily a man, and this remains a synonym of Homophobia (and is stated as such at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gayphobia wiktionary). But any confusion there can be addressed by the hatnote. On balance I no longer believe this to be a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:CFORK)