Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophobia

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. ugen 64 02:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afrophobia
This single sentence substub appears to be a dictionary definition in its present state. Pardon my asking, but should this not be deleted in accordance with the current Deletion policy? Would this not fall under the category of a neologism? No vote, as I am unfamiliar with the term. --GRider\talk 00:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't know, then why even bring it up? Mike H 00:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you find a dubious page, isn't it better to Vfd it and find out if it's keepable or not, rather than let it sit there?
 * User:Kappa, it is better to VfD it, but only if it's done properly. However, you can't consider this "being VfD'd" when GRider overtly doesn't support his own nomination.  Incidentally, if someone later nominates this article properly, this VfD should not stand under the "it's only just been on VfD" argument. Chris 01:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, The Economist seems to have used it in a headline, so it's not a neologism in my book. Could be expanded to discuss the causes and effects of Afrophobia. Kappa 01:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) No vote Kappa 02:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn afrocruft. ComCat 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable neologism. Megan1967 02:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete gets about 100 unique Google hits, but quite a chunk of these are from a joke list of phobias, where Afrofobia is defined as "fear of the return of 1970s hair styles". A lot of the remainder are citations of one or two legitimate articles like the one mentioned by Kappa above. Still, a term used a few dozen times at best is a neologism in my book. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  02:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The term is certainly obscure, and rarely used by the general public (except when misused for humorous reasons), but it is far from being a neologism. It is actively used by academics to describe a very real phenomenon--a phenomenon which, unless I am mistaken, has no other name. If we decided to avoid this term, we force ourselves to (A) ignore the concept utterly, or (B) resort to a verbose, cumbrous circumlocution like "Anti-African sentiment", which is as inaccurate as it is clunky. Afrophobia is an existing (albeit misused) term with an academic history. Binadot 18:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete--this is a dicdef at best, and it's not used enough to expand into an encyclopedia article. I'll take Binadot's evidence for wider usage. Keep, possible move. Meelar (talk) 14:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because I'm worried this is part of Mike H's campaign against GRider. (''comment left unsigned by User:Jscott at 3:59 UTC, March 26)
 * Since when do I have a campaign against GRider? This is one of the few times I've actually given a public opinion on this matter. Besides, my vote would have been Delete anyway, so that blows your whole reasoning for the delete vote out of the water, honey chile. Mike H 04:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just read Jscott's rationale. Talk about ridiculous and completely off-point/counterproductive! No wonder the post wasn't signed. *disgusted* deeceevoice 13:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not show up in my dictionary (Websters Ninth New Collegiate). If verified, transwiki to Wiktionary.  Otherwise, delete.  Rossami (talk) 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. &#9786;  Looking at phobia one finds the redlink farm that no doubt spawned this article in the first place, and it's full of made-up words, like trisderkaderkaphobia and paretriaderkedephobia.  (Look in the dictionary, folks.  The correct words are triskaidekaphobia and paraskavedekatriaphobia.)  Moreover, the edit history shows that made-up phobias have been cleaned out of the list a couple of times.  I suggest a look in the dictionary here, too, at afrophobia.  Whilst there's plenty of evidence that this is a word, there's not so much evidence that this is a real phobia, rather than a political weapon. Uncle G 11:35, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * Either delete as non-notable neologism, or redirect to -phobia (I liked the old title "List of phobias" better) to prevent possible recreation. (It looks like its cleanup time for our phobia articles again.) -- Infrogmation 18:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Change to no vote for me. The rewritten article looks like it has some valid information, but the title "Afrophobia" still seems a bit much of a neologism. The web citiations of the term below are rather minimal; unless there is documented use in mainstream or academic print publication, I would strongly urge the material be moved to a different title or merged. -- Infrogmation 05:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is a familiar term in AA culture and pronounces itself in various ways. Review the page for additions and understanding - Afrophobia comment left by anon user:24.163.104.237 who for some reason signed with the article title
 * STRONG keep. The term and concept are well-known among anthropologists, though they lack a strong internet presence (i.e. 164 google hits, most of them jokes about the Jackson Five). A far more popular term (with 5,340 google hits), with its own article, is negrophobia. I would not, however, propose to merge these two pages, since negrophobia is a distinct concept concerning the view of blacks in the antebellum United States, whereas afrophobia has a considerably wider scope (with an emphasis on modern attitudes). This is the only serious site I could find which uses "afrophobia" in its anthropological sense, though there are undoubtedly others. Despite the paucity of electronic resources on this phenomenon, and the current sad state of the article, I think it is obvious that it should be retained, even as a stub. To delete it would be ridiculous--like deleting Anti-Semitism but keeping pogrom. Binadot 17:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT!I'd add something here, but Binadot has said everything I could possibly say about it. Yeah, it's stubby -- but that hardly justifies deleting it.  In fact, I'm willing to contribute to it what I can, but right now I'm involved in an RfC dispute -- and I'm having computer problems.  So, I've got no time to spare right now.  Give it time.  It'll grow. :-) deeceevoice 04:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Binadot and Deeceevoice.  Look through the Google hits carefully, ignoring the Wikipedia mirrors and the stupid 70s jokes, and you will find some stronger evidence for the use of this term.  The article obviously needs improvement. Antandrus 04:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but Clean Up The little hair comment at the end is cute but out of place. Lilyana
 * This user account created today, so far used for four votes on VfD pages... Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made a major rewrite of the article. I think it's a lot more than a stub or a dicdef now. Binadot 21:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this rewrite; I have stricken my old vote. Mike H 22:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is expanded but not yet verified.  Until the use of this term in this sense is authoritatively sourced as something other than a neologism or original research, I can not change my vote.  Rossami (talk) 00:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a valid concern. The word doesn't have much of an Internet presence, but it is attested (primarily on newsgroups, but also in other places). I've done some Google searches, and here are some pages where the word (or a variant thereof) appears in its scholarly sense:
 * As "afrophobia" (out of 163 hits):, , int/980330/africa.good_will_bill.at20.html, , 1992/04/15/Latest_speaker_for_Africana_draws_fire.txt, , , Articles/State%20of%20the%20Arts.htm, cgi?msg=323&archive=Jan2002, , page=9&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=&fpart=1, kaoki/site/articles/citizenship.pdf, ES/consejo/documentos/spcl23di94.htm,
 * As "afrophobic" (out of 176 hits):, , , , ,
 * As "afriphobia" (out of 17 hits):, press/pressRelease2003-Rendezvous.htm, , Power_Blocks_Article_for_Pub.htm
 * As "afrophobe" (out of 16 hits):, id_forum=3861&retour=article.php3%3Fid_article%3D169, , thiam/staf14/ex2/comment.html, index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4406,
 * The term isn't common by any stretch of the imagination, but it's well-known among students of African culture. Most of the Internet resources are of the Afrocentric bent, but the term (and the concept it describes) are used by mainstream anthropologists as well. It may well be called academic jargon, but I don't think it's a neologism. Binadot 03:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extensive list of links. Unfortunately, when I tried to review them, many failed to open or opened to pages which did not include any of the cited words.  If I kept count correctly, I found 18 dead or misdirected links.  8 of the links were to pages which I would characterize as "casual" - that is, where the tone of the prose led me to believe the author coined the term to describe a personal feeling or thought.  2 of those explicitly put "afrophobia" in quotes - a sign that the author may also believe the word to still be a neologism.  Only 5 of the links above went to authoritative sources using the word as an established technical concept.  The question then is "Is five enough?"  Reading through them and evaluating them in contest, my answer is not quite.  No change of vote yet.  Since many of your cites seemed to be subscription-based websites, perhaps you could cut-and-paste some of the more authoritative sources into the article's talk page?  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 00:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Extreme kee^H^H^Hdelete. I gets rough and stuff with my afrocruft!  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for topic, but also Rename. There should definitely be an article broadly about this very important topic, but there is no need to use an obscure term.  If the article is about racism against Blacks, call it Racism against Blacks.  Of course "Blacks" has a particular (the most common) meaning, but it is no more of a misnomer than "Afrophobia" which does not include prejudice against most North Africans.--Pharos 09:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would oppose a redirect. Afrophobia is a much broader topic than racism against blacks, just as homophobia is broader than, say, gay-bashing. Afrophobia involves a cultural and ethnological dimension, and extends to self-loathing and insecurity on the part of blacks themselves. There is some concern that the term "afrophobia" is a neologism, but a cursory Google search shows that it is merely obscure. Binadot 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "Racism" unlike say, "gay-bashing", does not imply violence or direct attack, and (like many things) is a cultural phenomenon. "Racism" does not imply that it cannot be self-directed, indeed many would say that it often is.  I have specifically not said that "Afrophobia" is a neologism, but rather that it is obscure, very obscure, and for that reason it would be best to have it at a more common name, that could be found by searching for say, 'blacks racism' in the google box.--Pharos 21:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. as a redirect to Racism against people of Black African origin which is more specific, encyclopedic, and polite than Racism against Blacks. This is a legitimate topic and I cannot understand, why anyone would now oppose making a redirect to the expanded article at a new name. People will search for Afrophobia, and it will redirect to an NPOV; e.g. neither Eurocentric nor Afrocentric, article. Our policy encourages many redirects, and we are not limited by paper. Always remember, we are not Britannica&mdash; we're better. -JCarriker 10:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * You may change your mind. Even if you've already voted, see: talk:Afrophobia "Brainstorming the potential"  You may end up with a different take on the potential/usefulness of this article -- and come up with more ideas.  deeceevoice 11:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.This page, and a refined title, should be kept as a valid and important entry to the wikipedia. Its context needs be broadened historically, psychologically and culturally.  Historically, the phenomenon is likely driven by humankind's longstanding, inherent fear of the night or the dark; and this should be explored by the page.  Culturally, the term 'afrophobic' needs to be recognized as extending beyond the fact that "blacks" reside in or come from Africa.  In general, most individuals have developed a negative perspective on Africa and things African (even without the consideration of the presence of "blacks").  Given these comments a suggested title change would focus on valid terms that denote the fear of: "Dark or Night - Nyctophobia"; or "Darkness - Achluophobia, Myctophobia, or Scotophobia". Karhu 16:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * MAXIMUM KEEP WOW...did not expect the firestorm which has spewed forth...originally intended this as part of my research on a book regarding the topic...never had a chance to return to it since creating the stub (my bad)...its obviously not a neologism...most factual evidence to support keeping it has been put forth previously by others...news articles have used the term so it would seem that would squash any need to VfD...am working on research from the scientific perspective...IMHO this should be in the APA DSM-IV...the Vfd confirms its validity by those who are in denial...the jokes are further evidence of its existence...that is what makes it a joke...the truth encoded in the joke makes it funny...funny weird or strange as well as funny ha-ha...one of Arsenio's "things that make you go...hmmmm"...regarding the frequency of use...can anyone quantify the frequency necessary to justify an article???...at one time the same could have been said regarding bling-bling but now to Vfd that would be a foregone conclusion...in addition how frequently are ANY of the phobias used?...its not part of Mike H's campaign against GRider...OHhhhh MAN LMAO...A political weapon???...give me a break...next it will be considered a cultural weapon...then Not PC...then all kinds of what not...its just a word...remember??? sticks and stones will break my bones but WORDS???...people will type anything...IF you voted for it have you contributed???...if not then why not??? Racism against blacks dilutes the validity of the term and disavows the mental illness afrophobia represents...hence the need to define an aspect of reality that has heretofore been ignored...like any illness it can not be treated until diagnosed...a person engaging in extreme violence or hatred regarding a person of African ancestry, the history of Africa, and the culture of Africa and all they represent is a psychopathic racial personality according to the late Dr. Bobby Wright in his book "The Psychopathic Racial Personality". Such behavior is a direct result of Afrophobia.  At this point it must be clearly and emphatically stated that since Afrophobia is a mental illness no one can consider themselves immune from it unless they have been given a psychological assessment, just as no one can consider themselves immune to malaria unless they have been examined by a doctor.  Therefore, a person of African ancestry who bleaches their dark skin to a paler shade, wears blue contacts, and straightens then bleaches their hair blond is engaging in a form of self-mutilation which manifests as a by-product of self-hatred.  Clearly, this absolves from blame or anyone who might in the deep recesses of their mind view this as a political weapon, although that is a perspective which has not been considered.  This is not an attempt to point fingers and place blame.  It is definitely an opportunity to confront and recognize the unreasonableness and excessiveness of certain behaviors in order to treat the illness they represent.  Afrophobia is real in spite of the fact that it has not been documented as the historical phenomenon that it undeniably codifies--Nazikiwe 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fallacy in your argument is that an encyclopedia is, by choice, a secondary source.  Real or not - intuitively obvious or not, we do not want to create or popularize new concepts.  That's not what encyclopedias do.  We report on established concepts.  It is not yet obvious to the rest of us that this is an established concept - that it is no longer a neologism.  You explicitly claim that "Afrophobia" is a mental illness.  Can you cite a medical diagnosis code?  Or even a published medical journal article supporting that claim?  It would go a long way toward considering this to be a verified concept.  Rossami (talk)
 * Response: My intent is not to define Afrophobia but to show that it has yet to be recognized. Again, primary sources have been cited previously.  Its not a new concept it has ben established, just not acknowledged.  "The Economist" used the term.  That use obviates the "establishment" of the concept.  I defy anyone to find a more establishment publication than that. It seems that the previous votes are not being read before a vote is submitted.  A count of the keep votes shows that it is an established concept "to the rest of us", even including Grider the initiator of the VfD. Afrophobia is a term that recognizes the global aspect of "colorphobia" towards people of darker hue who trace their origins to the African continent.  No, I can't (at this time) cite a medical diagnosis code or a published "medical" journal article.  However, it must be reiterated that should this standard be applied across the board to all articles under "phobias" most of them would have been VfD'd by now.  This discussion is of benefit in my research.  AS a by-product it has become clear to me that so-called "white flight" is a result of Afrophobia. It helps to see the different perspectives that need to be considered (ie, Uncle G's mention of political weapons). Your comment is much appreciated and valued.
 * Keep and allow for continuous organic growth. Edits by Binadot and Deeceevoice illustrate that ths is a real term and not a neologism.  Google has been proven to be ineffective at measuring whether a topic is notable or not, hence my original "No vote" at the start of this discussion.   --GRider\talk 18:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. Neologism, original research. Mikkalai 21:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read the Economist article and other links referenced above for the original research.
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. There' no original research, nor is this a made-up term. --FuriousFreddy 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks ok to me, seemingly NOT a neologism...while "Afrophobia" gets few "scholarly" Google hits, "Afrophobic" gets plenty. Fawcett5 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Afrophobic - If votes count - I'm giving this a definite YES. Name changing arguments may re-direct you from completing the article. Deal with re-naming issue later. I also believe the whole Afrophobic issue deals with a FEAR of black people that started pre history. Read about Solomon's times when the Queen of Sheba (from Kush) was a great power. If Africans (in the past) had great civilisations, great spiritual beliefs this would lead to the Fear and Envy that started Afrphobia.
 * Note. Above vote left unsigned by 81.158.48.79.    --GRider\talk 21:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, or disambiguate other definitions Sniffandgrowl 00:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User was created today; he has only two edits not to vfds, one of them to his user page. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 02:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the thoroughly erroneous (and, I believe, herein successfully challenged) contention that "afrophobia" is a neologism and, on that basis alone, the article treating it should be deleted: I just happened upon New anti-Semitism.  The lead-in reads:  "The New anti-Semitism is a controversial neologism which has emerged in the last decade to describe a perceived increase in prejudicial behavior, verbal invective, and threats and attacks directed at Jewish targets around the globe."  So, what's that about?  Is Wikipedia hostile to only some "neologisms" and not others?  Curious, indeed.  deeceevoice 14:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. Not entirely. The thing is that Wikipedia is not the place to coin a new word or phrase. It happens quite often that somebody conceives a new word or phrase and puts it on WP as if it were widely accepted, possibly in the hopes that it will become widely accepted. That is generally frowned upon, so neologisms are often deleted - via VfD, giving people the chance to prove that it is not a neologism. Which was done here. If you feel that new anti-Semitism shouldn't be here, feel free to nominate it for deletion and we'll discuss it. Radiant_* 20:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the VfD discussion surrounding New anti-Semitism; I participated in it. My rhetorical question remains:  "Are some neologisms less prohibited, less offensive than others?"  My point is that "new anti-Semitism" is actually defined as a neologism in the article itself; yet it remains on Wikipedia.  So, clearly, being a neologism is not in itself grounds for deletion -- as one certainly would be led to believe by the discussion at hand -- because new anti-Semitism is an obvious exception to Wiki policy.  Again, however, the most salient matter in this regard is the fact that the contributors to this VfD have proven fairly convincingly that "Afrophobia" is not a neologism and, IMO, that the article has merit.  deeceevoice 07:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I agree with that. Keep this article as expanded. I think that the neologism issue means that established neologisms (those found in pop culture, or expansively on google, or whatever) are encyclopedic, but new neologisms (those limited to a small area as yet) are not. Radiant_* 10:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)