Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (2nd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 of the debate was: speedy deleted by User:Doc_glasgow. Pepsidrinka 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia

Page was recreated as a POV fork of Islamophobia by Germen [1]. Was deleted by consensus before, and no valid reason to recreate. Irishpunktom\^talk 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous vote, which resulted in delete, can be found Here.

Delete - as nom. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term islamophilia:
- is notable
- is used in print
- is used in several reputable academic publications
- yields about 1000 Google hits

which all qualify as valid reasions for keep and recreate. The neologism is disputed, as is islamophobia which is part of Wikipedia.

User fails to indicate any POV elements in this article, which makes his claims that the article is a POV fork dubious and unproven.

User "strongly supports" keeping of the POV article islamophobia, which is inconsequent[2] --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 10:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Germens comments. -- Karl Meier 10:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Raphael1 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a dictionary entry, as manifest by the discussion and the links. As all emerging articles (stubs) it is still concise. --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 11:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per user Raphael1, although it seems to have been deleted already. Jizz 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedy deleted G4 by User:doc glasgow, at 22:53, 31 March 2006. Article was recreated by User:Germen at 23:12, 31 March 2006. I have re-added the AfDx template linking to this discussion, and hope: (1) The discussion is held, to determine if this article belongs on Wikipedia per the various rules, policies, and guidelines, and (2) that all users involved abide by the result of this AfD. -- Saberwyn 12:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try this again
Delete . It's a dicdef. Kcordina ^Talk 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Possibly this would be better in wiktionary, but probably not needed at all Pseudomonas 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Roland 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's nowhere near as notable as analogous concepts like Islamophobia or Islamofascism, but it has been utilized by several notable sources. I've said before that I would vote keep on "Zionazi", and "Islamophilia" has achieved greater currency than that. NPOV will require describing how the concept is understood by its users, rather than asserting that "Islamophilia" is an objectively real phenomenon, but I think this falls on the keep side. Babajobu 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Grutness' opinion from the old AfD: "Merge with Islamophobia - in the hope that they will somehow cancel each other out and implode. Failing that, delete". Sandstein 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of dicdef? Delete because of neologism? Who cares, just toss it! RGTraynor 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Hetar 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no chance of ever getting any NPOV content under that title. Henning Makholm 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Piccadilly 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another pov fork used to make a point, the neologism is not well known at all. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply isn't notable. Seperate from wikipedia Islamophilia has 714 google hits. For a new term that somebody could make up on the spot without ever having heard before, that's basicly nothing. Islamophobia on the other hand has 1460000 non-wikipedia hits on google. Shadowoftime 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a topic, its encyclopedic. Its a concept that represents a real phenomenon in society. Why all the hoopla? Its a good thing we are not editing a real encyclopedia , cause I think there would be a lot of missing pages in it.--CltFn 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Daily Telegraph did an article on this entitled Islamophilia in 2001. [3]. Let's encourage articles on serious topics. -- JJay 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Irishpunktom. SouthernComfort 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been created out of a desire to "balance" Wikipedia with Islamophobia. The real test of whether this article should be deleted is whether the term is in common use. Islamophobia is in far greater use than Islamophilia so those WP:POINT violators, who claim "If you keep Islamophobia, then we should also keep Islamophilia" are not necessarily correct. Some of the "references" in this article link to articles or websites of questionable acceptability and many of them do not use the term "Islamophilia". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable article that should be kept, the mere mention of this term by the british media and political figures should be enough ensure the article stays.JHJPDJKDKHI! 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the article was speedy deleted again by User:doc glasgow (G4) and protected. Now what the fuck do we do? -- Saberwyn 22:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That sort of action really seems counterproductive to me. Is it too much to ask for an expanation? User:Dr. Glasgow clearly knew this AfD was in progress. It would be nice if he at least had the courtesy to explain why he closed it down. -- JJay 23:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've requested a deletion review. Henning Makholm 09:06, 2 April 2006 (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.

Vote tally:

Delete: 13
Keep: 7
Less than 2/3 majority for deleting -> KEEP.
Note that the voting process was aborted in a ridiculously short time.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]