Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying while Muslim


 * 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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Flying while Muslim

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Entirely superfluous. Even if it is not an out-and-out neologism there is nothing to merit a page on its own; should be redirected to Racial profiling or some such. We can't give an article to every turn of phrase. Pablosecca 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may be a neologistic phrase, it's still gotten wide-spread coverage as a subject on its own. See:  .  That's certainly a lot of significant coverage.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary or Delete - Per Avoid neologisms: 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 cited sources are not about the term itself as much as the practice of profiling Muslims. -- Kesh 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, since the term is descriptive of the profiling of Muslims, I'm confused as to how you can say it's not about the term. Exactly what do you think would be a source about the term itself?  FrozenPurpleCube 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NEO If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Reliable sources are not articles that use the term, but sources that define or explore the usage. That isn't the case here, DeleteBalloonman 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, so? I'm familiar with that, and the articles I searched for above easily meet that criteria, so I'm wondering what you're reading into it that I'm not.  Because it seems rather obvious to me that they are discussing the concept.  See below for an example.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Balloonman pointed out, articles that simply use the term do not constitute reliable sources for the neologism. We would need articles/papers that explore the neologism itself and its impact on society. Just like we can't use newspaper articles that only talk about a person in passing as a source for a Wikipedia article about the person: the person must be the subject of the article, not simply mentioned in the article. In the cited sources, the term is only used briefly to underscore the treatment of muslims. The subject is how the muslims were treated, not the phrase itself. -- Kesh 04:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what either of you are talking about. You seem to be focused on something, but I'm just not sure how you can claim that there aren't articles about this subject is not a case where the term is merely used, it's clearly about the subject of the article.  Did you not see "The catchphrase is intended to draw parallels to the American phenomenon known as "driving while black," which refers to the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to disproportionately pull over African-American drivers. But other, more-moderate Islamic groups say their activist counterparts are exaggerating the degree to which it's taking place. These dueling viewpoints are currently being waged on two Islamic websites." .  If that's not completely on target, I have no idea what is.  I'm honestly completely baffled here. FrozenPurpleCube 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that CBS link is not mentioned in the article we're talking about, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. The References section of the article do not have anything to do with it: 1 I can't speak for, as it's behind a paid link, but the abstract never mentions the phrase. 2-4 are not about the phrase, but about the phenomenon of muslims being racially discriminated against. The difference is distinct. Your CBS article is the first link that actually talks about the phrase itself, rather than the phenomenon the phrase attempts to encompass. -- Kesh 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since I linked to the search where I found it, perhaps I was hoping you'd look at it, or look for something of the like yourself. Sometimes it does help to go beyond the article.  But if it bothers you, I'll add the source.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, the burden of notability and verifiability is on those writing the article. Linking to a search doesn't help, unfortunately. The article itself must be sourced to be kept. On the plus side, there's still a few days to sort through the links and find sources that do discuss the phrase itself and try to build some references that will support the article. If you (and others) can manage that, I'd be willing to change my mind. -- Kesh 05:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, linking to a search does help on AFD. There's a reason why it's important to *look* at what other people have produced and are saying.  If you're not going to do that, then I'm sorry, but that's not going to help.  I understand there are people who just say "But it is notable" and provide nothing.  Or when they expect you to look at some book that isn't readily available but may cover the content in some way (minor or major, no telling)  That's not the case here.  I gave a search, with the first result being a clearly relevant article.  There are lots of others.  Clearly this isn't a case of a minor flash-in-night neologism, but a concept that has lead to significant discussion on it.  I am quite satisfied this merits coverage.  So far, you haven't convinced me otherwise.   FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstand. Linking to a search means nothing. It is your responsibility to look through those searches, find out which ones actually support the article, and then cite the article appropriately. The number of Google hits is not going to sway an AfD, especially on a neologism. We need you to cite which articles are actually about the term itself, not just causally used in the sources in passing while discussing the actual discrimination of muslims. -- Kesh 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking at cross purposes here. AFD does not have to result in a perfect article, or even immediate changes to an article.  I'm swayed by the fact that there are readily available sources to be used.  Did I mention the number of Google hits?  No, I did not.  I said "there is a lot of significant coverage" which is something different.  It means "Hey, I have found a lot of sources" which is a prime criteria for any article. I could understand if it was hard to look at those sources, but all you have to do is click a link and see for yourself.  It's not hard.  Honestly, I just don't understand where you're coming from.  Are you disagreeing with the results of my search, or where you just ignorant of them?   FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral and Reply Comment I think the question above is, "Where are the sources that explore the usage of the neologism?" As opposed to, "Where are the sources of the neologism being used?"  All of the articles cited all appear to be incidents of racial profiling of Muslims as they fly (or attempt to fly.)  The articles all focus on the incidents which cause the phrase to be applied.  They are not about the phrase itself, just the phrase being used in the context of the incident.  But that's just my two cents.  Don't really see where it matters one way or the other; the information (since it's a well-sourced stub) could just as easily be merged into Racial profiling as easily as the article could be kept (or deleted.) 69.19.14.40 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to me the articles are clearly about the subject of this phrase, so I'm not seeing the point in this objection. This isn't a question of mere usage in these sources, but an actual examination of the situation.  Hence my initial question earlier, of "Exactly what do you think would be a source about the term itself?" FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still confusing someone using the term, with a news clip/article/book about the phrase itself. That is the difference. You gave an example earlier in the thread that actually was about the expression itself. That's what you should be looking for in sources. -- Kesh 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're confused and applying the wrong standard. It seems to me you're looking for more of an etymological approach than is warranted.  I think the important part is wide-spread coverage of the subject, not an analysis of it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, the sources are invalid. Could you provide a better explanation for why the article should be kept? Or, barring that, better sources? -- Kesh 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to racial profiling. This is on the cusp, but I think the encyclopedia would be better served by having it at racial profiling instead.  --Haemo 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Islam is not a race. Indonesian sucide bombers are not the same as Arab suicide bombers yet pose the the same danger. Prester John 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase may be a neologism, but the concept of Flying while Muslim merits a page and should be expanded. It is distinct from the common perception of religious discrimination in that it represents a major religion being feared rather than simply being considered inferior. It shouldn't be merged into racial profiling because Islam isn't a race. The phrase isn't Flying while Arab. - Pharaonic 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My motivation is that the content of this article, and there's barely any content, is totally the property of perfectly good existing articles, as mentioned Racial profiling, Islamophobia, Racism, et cetera. Also the content of the article appears mainly to stem from the case of the imams. And most importantly the phrase itself has no real history beyond being a casual creation, an adhoc offshoot of Driving While Black, which is in turn a parody of DWI. Pablosecca 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you might have suggested a merge. Me, I concur this is an offshoot of existing articles.  This only means that it should link to them, not that it's not sufficiently notable to sustain its own article.  There's certainly more than enough content to just describe the phrase, and it has certainly received significant attention as a concept.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * delete trivial notability of neologism-- Sef rin gle Talk 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain what's trivial about being featured on CBS, CNN, NPR....FrozenPurpleCube 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't. You are conflating someone using the term in an off-hand manner with actual citable sources that investigate the term itself. -- Kesh 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a new term of art, "Flying While Muslim," being used by some Islamic activist groups to protest what they characterize as discrimination by U.S. airlines against Muslim passengers.The catchphrase is intended to draw parallels to the American phenomenon known as "driving while black," which refers to the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to disproportionately pull over African-American drivers. But other, more-moderate Islamic groups say their activist counterparts are exaggerating the degree to which it's taking place. These dueling viewpoints are currently being waged on two Islamic websites. That is a citable source (CBS, US News), it starts with a definition of the term, and then explains examples of incidences that fit that definition. This is as good a source as Wikipedia could possibly want. Quidproquid 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's the only source that's been shown so far to actually deal with the phrase. We need multiple ones to satisfy WP:RS. -- Kesh 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except they're not using the phrase in an offhand manner. Sorry, but these articles are quite clearly about the subject of the term itself. Discrimination against Muslims is meaning of the phrase, discrimination against Muslims is the focus of the articles. If you think something else is necessary, I still don't know what it is. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of marginal socio-political catchphrases. There are no secondary sources establishing the significance or discussing the usage of this phrase, and cobbling these sources together approaches original research.Proabivouac 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * False. There are secondary sources (i.e., sources that explain usage, rather than simply use it) and mention the notability of the phrase.  Mukadderat 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is used often, and sources include definitions and usage. The phrase is known well enough to be worthy of an entry here. Quidproquid 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets the criteria for notability. Baka man  23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable phrase. Sufficiently referenced, not only with usage, but with explanation of the meaning. Mukadderat 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Neologism and POV fork. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any unique material to Islamophobia or Persecution of Muslims. --Eliyak T · C 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and Salt; as per precedent set with Muslims fear Backlash. Non notable Neogolism. Prester John 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not similar. "Muslims fear Backlash" is a plain sentence, a statement of fact (whether the fact is true or false is not an issue), not a catch phrase and surely not neologism, i.e., the article is basicaly wrong. Here we have a verifiably actively used policitical cliche as cliche, not as a stament of fact. `'юзырь:mikka 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The phrase is in active use for 6 years now, although mostly discussing the flying imams case. If more Muslim proviling cases will not be reported, then probably a redirect to "flying imams" will be a reasonable solution. `'юзырь:mikka 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is interesting to notice that an investigation of "flying imams case" was promised, but I can't find any report or hearing. `'юзырь:mikka 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube.  ITAQALLAH   14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the main point here: even if it's sourced (i.e., someone said it,) it's still just a recentist catchphrase of political discourse. See Religion of Peace for another article which should definitely be deleted for the same reason. Such junk articles detract from our credibility.Proabivouac 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - a rather obscure neologism that's already addressed in the Islamophobia article. Korny O&#39;Near 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a compendiums of idioms, be they neologisms or not. I suggest transwiking this to wiktionary.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 23:49, 23 June 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.