Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight man cancer
The existence or occurrence of reporting on any subject/phenomenon/fad/phrase/place/etc does not automatically create () long-lasting notability (otherwise referred to as, the standard by which most all article here are allowed to exist and be maintained). The term has gotten coverage in https://www.google.com/search?q=%22straight+man+cancer%22&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X less than 15 sources and an even smaller percentage of those are reliable sources at all, and what's left of those is mired by at least two sources that seem to be interviewing the person who coined the term (making them primary and therefore null in assisting to determine notability here, as the news articles were not specifically about the term beyond a "passing mention"). I am not saying the term is not used at all (which is a misrepresentation of my previous articulation on this), only that it has yet to be used enough to be considered notable... and even if it had been, there's a rather strong (over 15 year long) precedent already set by the redirect for male chauvinist pig (which has a https://www.google.com/search?num=20&tbm=nws&q=%22male+chauvinist+pig%22 much higher rate of reporting, and has shown clear lasting notability), which would almost surely be seen as a  if done as an article. But, I would be highly open to redirecting this article to the same target as that, with the important (even if albeit entirely limited in depth) data from the NYT, Guardian, BBC and other outlets on this culture specific (and even to a large degree Weibo.com-centric) phrase merged to ensure nothing that ''should be kept'' ends up gone. Special:Contributions/2601:282:B01:A696:8040:10F1:A6A1:B28F|2601:282:B01:A696:8040:10F1:A6A1:B28F
— [[User talk:2601:282:B01:A696:8040:10F1:A6A1:B28F|talk]]), 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POVFORK (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)