Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hijabophobia


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hijabophobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject is probably worthy of an article but the present piece is written in such an unsuitable style that the only thing to do is to rub it out and wait for someone else to start again. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try to stubify it in a moment. — kashmiri  TALK  00:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. — kashmiri  TALK  00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - Into Hijab as proposed. I don't know if this needs a stand-alone article right now. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing to merge there. Just some ranting, apparently machine-translated from Persian. Nor is notability of this neologism established by citing one German-language paper. Eperoton (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am fine with delete, but then it might be easily recreated with the same nonsense text, and I am not sure if salting it would be future-proof. Hence redirecting to Hijab might be safer. — kashmiri  TALK  12:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Hijab makes sense. Eperoton (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Nothing to merge. -- Callinus (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per above fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should not be salted because of the word usage in a number of mutually independent sources:  , etc. Can certainly be deleted, though. —  kashmiri  TALK  16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. This is something that really looks like it should be on Wiktionary and it practically has nothing about it. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NEO, I don't think a redirect is worthwhile, or that salting is necessary at this point. Perhaps if unsuitable articles continue to pop up.  Matthew Thompson talk to me! 10:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a thing, but clearly it is not a notable word or concept. I'd favor a redirect to Hajib, but would not object to its outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * mind the spelling of your redirect proposal ;-) —HyperGaruda (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete and Salt - Fails NEO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:48, 21 January 2016 (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.