Deletion of Chickenhawk (sexuality)

Comment: show me sources that give substantial treatment (as per )to the subject(s) of the article and I'll change my vote. I'd heard the term before and thought I'd find something online, but I don't see anything but a couple of definitions, so now I doubt the term or subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps it's better treated as part of another article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I see no strong reason to delete it. If it's unsourced, it needs sources, if it doesn't seem it can get bigger -- that could very well be because you aren't interested in the topic. Furthermore, I also noticed that you previously tried to delete Gay_%28disambiguation%29 and Lesbian_%28disambiguation%29, leading me to wonder if the reason you didn't cite a policy reason for deletion is because the real reason of this nomination is to raise a |soapbox issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Chickenhawk" is very old (Victorian at least - it's used frequently in the Victorian novel/book My Secret Life) slang, but I'm concerned that this AfD is being brought as some kind of , one way or the other
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)