Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhimmitude


 * 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 was Keep ~ Anthony  20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a neologism and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NEO. The article Dhimmitude is definitely a neologism, and admits to being so when it states in the article "The word dhimmitude is a neologism, imported from the French language, and derived from the Arabic language word dhimmi." Furthermore, this dhimmitude may be a protologisms: the article states "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". Also the article does not cite any reliable sources that are about the term. This is essential to keeping the article. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." No such source is cited in the article. Moreover, the main purpose of this article seems to be tracking the emergence of the term, and not much more in depth than that. WP:NEO states "The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" I can elaborate on this further. N.B. It may be able to merge this article into Dhimmi. Agha Nader 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Dhimmi. It looks like there are minimal [WP:RS]] regarding this term, but I'd be happier discussing the concept more than the term itself - therefore a separate article is probably not appropriate. YechielMan 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Dhimmi. Not appropriate for its own article as a self-admitted neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Same connivery was executed on militant Islam. Patchouli 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course a joke, though Patchouli actually gave that as reason before. Merge - as a NEO to Dhimmi.  The Behnam 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This concept is in common usage in discussions of Islamic influence in the world at the moment. There are 683,000 google hits for it.  The article can certainly be improved and sourced better but articles shouldn't be deleted when they can be improved. Nick mallory 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS, "A large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". --Agha Nader 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Rather than deleting this article, it should be updated to satisfy the above criticisms. Frotz 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no way it can be updated. It is very up to date: The term was "invented in 1982"!--Agha Nader 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Nomination is misguided; several reliable sources are provided in the article that discuss the term itself. Plus this certainly does not belong in Dhimmi, which is about the historical phenomenon specifically. It would be like having a section in Jesus about the term Jesus Freak. - Merzbow 07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep over 600,000 google hits and all those references in the article must be able to define this term properly. If not, Merge --Rayis 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Contrary to what the article and the nom say, this is probably not an English neologism but an established (though relatively new) French word for which there is no English equivalent - so WP:NEO does not apply. It is easy to find on Google refs to establish notability - National Review, Washington Times etc. Clearly a right-wing buzz-word, but mostly treated as a French word. There are two books by Bat Ye'or (English translations of French) that use the word in the title. Both of these are mentioned in the article, directly contrary to what the nominator says about lack of RS.  Dhimmi is not the same at all.Johnbod 10:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that the term is an established French word? If you right, then this article should be deleted, and a new article created in French Wikipedia. Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that; there are dozens if not hundreds of articles titled with French, Arabic or other terms for which there is no exact English equivalent - try Category:Islam! The fact that the word is included in the title of a book (the books your nom chose not to mention) indicates pretty clearly the books are about the concept; you might also look at the 193 google book references here . The general ghits (99,700 in French) also establish it is a French word, often used in English. I don't have online OED - that would be interesting.  Johnbod 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in the google hits. It is irrelevant since I have never questioned its notability. What is relevant is WP:NEO. This term is definitely a neologism--for Gods sake "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, the article does exist on French Wikipedia -> Dhimmitude --Rayis 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dhimmi which is another article with similar issue.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is based on reliable sources, which demonstrate the notability of the subject rather well. Beit Or 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are fighting a strawman. I have never questioned its notability. Which source is about the term? --Agha Nader 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two enormous quotes from Spencer and Ye'or that define the term. That is clearly about the term. - Merzbow 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep asking that, if you are not questioning notability? Anyway, it is answered above. Johnbod 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only source that has dhmimmitude as its topic is not reliable. That source is Jihad Watch, which is a severe POV/hate site. Using Jihad Watch would be like using white-history.com or David Duke's page to cover Judaism. Neither of these are reliable source. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." This article does not have a "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". --Agha Nader 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is hopeless quibbling. That is not the only source. There are 2 books in the article (more on Google Books - link above) with it in the title, others with it in chapter titles, plus quotes etc. That is "about".  In any case WP:NEO is not in fact relevant once you regard it as a French term. Johnbod 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that it is not a neologism? Have you even proved that it is not a neologism in French--which by the way is an irrelevant argument you brought up. If it is not a neologism in French then you can translate some of this material and put it in French Wikipedia. Just because a term may not be a neologism in another language does not mean it is not a neologism in English. The other books cited in the article merely use the term and define it, the sources are not "about" the term. --Agha Nader 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agha, you are misinterpreting the policy - it is not saying that the ENTIRE book or paper has to be about the term, which would clearly be a ridiculous requirement. - Merzbow 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So tell me, which reliable source is "about" the term? As you know, it must be "about" the term to keep this article. WP:NEO says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The reliable sources in the article only define it in passing. It may seem ridiculous to you but this is an encyclopedia, and the content must be encyclopedic. --Agha Nader 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So now the standard is no longer about, but about and not defined in passing? Please get that added to WP:NEO first and then re-nominate for deletion. - Merzbow 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have amended, and in my view corrected, the lead sentence of the article, to say it is a French term rather than a neologism. If first used (in French) in 1982, it is the same age as prion & probably older than Thatcherism.  It was first used in English - but I think as a French word - in 1985.  Johnbod 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: User Johnbod has tried to suppress dhimmitude's noelogism status. Please see . His edit was in violation of WP:ATT and WP:OR. It also seems to be a bad faith edit since the term is definitely a neologism. After all, "The term is said to have been invented in 1982". --Agha Nader 04:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have explained more than once above that I think the article is incorrect to call the term a neologism in English. I was therefore Bold & changed it; having held off previously as this nomination was in progress. You seem to think an origin in 1982 makes it a certain neologism; as I've said above prion and Thatcherism are a similar age, and no one could now call them neologisms.  WP:NEO does not address the issue of foreign terms used in English, which I think it should. I will raise that after this debate.  Johnbod 10:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * keep well sourced and clearly notable--Sefringle 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Good article about a notion that is quite distinct, in meaning and applicability, from 'dhimmi'.--GdB 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe the guideline needs to be changed. Arrow740 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We must follow guidelines and policy. Guidelines have been formed through consesnus. They are also based on past precedent. Your vote seems to be an example of "I LIKE IT". Just because the article is well written does not mean it should be included and guidelines should be disregarded. As of now WP:NEO does not allow for such articles, and we must follow that.--Agha Nader 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a good article, and it is as Sefringle mention it is also well sourced and clearly notable. -- Karl Meier 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Dhimmi per nom and others. Article is an unnecessary fork. Malakaville 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, if Google finds over 600 000 hits for the word, it should be explained separately. --Thv 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are 100% incorrect. Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS, "A large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia".--Agha Nader 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep KazakhPol 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect per nom. Article on Dhimmi already exists and an article like this is simply being used to exaggerate such a concept and give it undue weight, which is wrong and POV. WP is increasingly being used to push a virulently anti-Islamic POV (especially in continuing to lump the extremists and fanatics with the mainstream adherents) and editors should strive to reverse this terrible situation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia. How many articles do we have here which we would never find in Britannica? Khorshid 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We're not a dictionary, but we generally keep articles on slogans, sayings etc. which cite sufficient reliable, especially scholarly sources to support encyclopedic content. Sandstein 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.