Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (3rd nomination)


 * 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. The WP:OR issues raised in the discussion have not been satisfactorily countered by those wanting to keep the article. In its current form the article touches on three somewhat distinct meanings of the term – orientalism, a "celebration of Islamic beliefs and a rejection of secularization processes", and an "unwavering and uncritical admiration of Islam". It remains unclear how exactly these match up with each other, and neither meaning is covered in much detail in the sources that have been provided. In its current form, the article does not (yet) clear the WP:SYNTH / WP:NEO threshold. Sandstein (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamophilia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a neologism, apparently coined by Daniel Pipes, which is based upon a number of sources that all appear to mention the word in passing. None of them actually discuss the term itself in any substantial depth. From Avoid neologisms: Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. 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&mdash;not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use&mdash;but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources&mdash;are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think that says it all. Articles on neologisms must have multiple reliable sources which discuss the word itself in sufficient depth for the topic to be noteworthy. Sources merely using the word, or discussing it very briefly or in passing, are insufficient to merit a whole article. In this instance, all the sources in the article simply use the term. I haven't been able to locate any sources which thoroughly discuss this neologism (i.e. its origin, history, usage, application, and so on). The best thing I could find was this 1996 work, which gives a brief two-sentence explanation which differs somewhat from the cynical connotation intended by most commentators, and also uses the word alongside other strange neologisms like "Orientitis" and "Occidentosis." In conclusion, I believe there are insufficient sources actually discussing the neologism in depth to warrant an article on the topic. If you believe the article should be kept, please provide the appropriate RS which offer a thorough exposition of the term itself, as stipulated above.  ITAQALLAH  01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this neologism has any real notability &mdash; it might be better to merge it to Islamophobia, since it's a direct offshoot from that term. I'm not giving a bold recommendation since I don't believe this needs a summary. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.    ITAQALLAH   01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the AFD's in the box provided it shows that this has been deleted twice before. --76.71.208.246 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be well sourced.  Yahel  Guhan  05:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the argument forwarded in the nomination. Collecting sources which simply use the term is insufficient, especially for a neologism. I would appreciate it if you responded to this point.  ITAQALLAH   17:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no need for such an article. Any use of this silly neologism one might encounter should need no explanation, and the article has no significant content. TheScotch (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We're here to write articles about topics, not words, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This topic - love of Islam - has been discussed extensively by reliable sources.  The exact word used for the title is unimportant but, since the coinage is obvious, this title seems fine.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You seem to me to be trying to eat your cake and have it too. The article is obviously about the word. In any case, there would be no excuse for an article about "love of Islam" either. Islam itself is of course a legitimate topic, but it's pretty good bet that an "Islam" article already existed. TheScotch (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, recreation of previously deleted material. Is there some reason that I'm missing why this wouldn't be speedied?Relata refero (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * one reason would be that the article contains sources which post-date previous discussions and so it is not a simple recreation. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Just a couple more from Pipes which don't change notability, as far as I can tell. Speedy delete. Relata refero (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles can change and so can consensus. I have already updated the article to improve its form and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see much of a difference, it appears to be broadly identical to the deleted content. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I was the admin who decline the G4 deletion earlier because I thought it was substantially different. Just for the record, the previous version was this:
 * "Islamophilia is a controversial neologism. Islamophilia is an opposite term for an other controversial neologism (Islamophobia). Islamophilia is used for non-muslims who are according for example Daniel Pipes to much sympathysing with the ideology Islam. Islamophilia was in the beginning used in fora and so on. But in the main article of Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier about the question to forbid the Quran journalist Gerry van der List used the word in the quote 'the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong."
 * That doesn't meet my speedy deletion criteria. --Haemo (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been through all the sources now. I only found one from Pipes and I took it out as it was irrelevant.  I've highlighted Burchill as an example of a critic since that is supported by a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite like the source I just added which discusses the matter in the context of 15C Spain. This topic is centuries old and to see it purely in terms of contemporary polemics is recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be a little more specific? The Fortress of Faith: The Attitude Towards Muslims in Fifteenth Century Spain is not about Islamophilia. In fact, it uses the neologism but once!--Agha Nader (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just once, on p. 60, without ever defining the term or talking about its meaning at all. The article should be deleted forthwith.  If it is not deleted, that source should be deleted - it is entirely deceptive to use that source to lend the term some kind of academic credibility. csloat (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy delete: Recreation of previously deleted article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Changing vote since it cannot be called "recreation". The article is WP:NEO. The term has no significant coverage in third party reliable source. Explicitly fails WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - in order for an entry to be kept in Wiktionary, the requirement is the word must be in usage, and that seems to have been proved. However, in order to be kept in Wikipedia, a higher standard is required - there must be sources about the word, not merely using it. That clearly isn't the case here. PhilKnight (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I just created an article Singe for example.  I needed no source about the word qua word in order to do so.  The sources have to describe the topic, not the word, since that is what the article is about.  Please see the differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, you clearly don't understand the nomination, Itaqallah's comments, or my own. I hope the closing admin will disregard your comments. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Insofar as the nominator has a point, it is a weak one. I have been going through the sources and they clearly describe the phenomenon of a love of Islam, especially by westerners who are not adherents of the religion.  This phenomenon is long-standing and notable and it is therefore appropriate that we have an article on it.  Previous versions have been badly written and too polemical but that's a matter of cleanup, not deletion and I am attending to it now. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the changes made, but I don't believe you've really found sources discussing the term itself in any depth. The very first citation you use, for example, is a speech mentioning Islamophilia only in passing. It offers no explanation of the word, no analysis of it, no history of it. Nothing. This is what is stipulated in WP:NEO, and I don't see how it can be dismissed as weak.  ITAQALLAH   17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first source uses the word in its title and so it clearly forms a significant part of its theme. We needn't dwell upon the exact word though since it is the topic which matters and this can be expressed by many phrases such as love of Islam, Islamic sympathies, pro-Islamic sentiment and so on.  The current title for the topic seems a natural one to a native English speaker like myself and I have no difficulty understanding what is meant.  I contrast this with a true neologism like Anti-pattern which is obscure and ill-defined - see its talk page for my position on that.  So, if we don't have sources discussing the etymology of Islamophilia this is not because it is not used - it clearly is.  It is because the word is so obvious as not to need explanation. We should therefore have no difficulty using it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, weak, the article has many problems... mainly because most reliable sources are just passing references to the term since, unlike Islamophobia (like it or hate it), this term has little coverage. This article leaves out the whole dimension of "irrational love of Islam"... and that's why it's used by Bat Ye'or and Mick Hume.  Because there are more sources both pro- and anti- the idea of Islamophobia we can approach a more neutral article which acknowledges it's a neologism and provides self-reflection on the political nature of the term.  Not enough sources exist that use "Islamophilia" to provide any self-reflection or external comment.  And on such scant sources and with such an undertone in the term we think it's neutral to say "In Britain, Islamophilia is associated with Prince Charles[3] and other members of the Royal family.[4]"... well... that needs to go in the very least. gren グレン 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the latter point, Prince Charles is well-known for his sympathies for Islam, especially since the Defender of the Faiths matter for which there lots of sources. Since he is prominent, this detail should obviously stay. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that goes back to my first point--that much of the writing using the term uses it in a pejorative manner. So, I wouldn't dispute (mostly because I don't know) that Prince Charles has sympathies for Islam.  But, the term has a certain implication as per its usage by Bat Ye'or, etc. that this is irrational and against his interests--the whole conecept of Eurabia is pinned on Islamophilia.  Without a proper discussion of those aspects the article is woefully incomplete.  But, I'm not sure there are any secondary sources discussing that. gren グレン 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grenavitar, it would be uncontroversial to say that Prince Charles has a long standing interest in the architecture and culture of Islam. Then again, he is also interested in the architecture and culture of Orthodox Christianity. However, to use a quasi-psychological neologism based on an opinion piece isn't encyclopedic. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * any pejorative suggestion of irrationality is in your mind, not mine, and would require sources to support it. If I call someone a bibliophile, for example, there is no implication that their love of books is irrational.  At worst, it's like calling someone a fan. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as it is recreation of previously deleted material.Bless sins (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An admin has kindly provided the text of the previous deleted material above and so we see that this new article is different and more substantial. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still vote delete. The article has very few (if any) reliable sources that give significant coverage to the term. At most, the term is given trivial coverage or "passing reference". Such neologism's "for which there are no treatments in secondary sources" despite usage "are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This is all from WP:NEO.Bless sins (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator's case rests upon WP:NEO.  This style guideline has a relevant section which may help us:
 * ''Articles wrongly titled as neologisms
 * ''In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.


 * So, what this is telling us is that, in a case such as this, we should find another title for the article rather than deleting it. Does anyone prefer another title such as Islamic sympathizers in the West, Islamic advocacy by non-Muslims or the like?  Myself, I still prefer Islamophilia which seems simple, NPOV and clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have Dhimmitude, Eurabia, and heaven knows how many other articles all making the same point.... Relata refero (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those seem to be rather different concepts. Palestinophilia seems a better example of something similar though less euphonious.  Perhaps there is some scope for merger.  What is the full list of of such terms? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I just prodded that one!
 * I'm not sure if we have a location where the entire list of such terms is summed up. The way that some people are arguing, it seems that they wish to conflate the attitudes of nineteeth century Arabists like Richard Burton with medieval scholars of Arab learning with modern-day sympathisers with Palestine, and that's simply unacceptable in the absence of several academic studies making that connection. Relata refero (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arabism such as that of Lawrence of Arabia might be said to be linguistic or racial. Orientalism or Palestinophilia are more geographical in nature.  Islam is a religion which spans many geographies, races and languages and so the concepts related to it are somewhat different in scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But if that is the implication then the proper term is "Islamicist". That's what is used by academics... gren グレン 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Entirely non-notable neologism. Delete and stop re-creating.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Islamophilia is categorically not a neologism. It is a technical, academic term whose meaning would be obvious to any scholar.  Such terms are almost never found in standard dictionaires nor even in technical ones.  Nevertheless, several academic books analyze Islamophila and use it.  For one such analysis check page 7 of Iran After the Revolution: Crisis of an Islamic State, Saeed Rahnema, Sohrab Behdad, I.B.Tauris, 1996, 292 pages, ISBN 1-8606-4128-8 Worldcat showing Academic Libraries holding this text And besides, the article has been vastly improved since this AfD was made. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most "technical, academic terms" are discussed explicitly somewhere, defined explicitly somewhere, sometimes their scope is quarreled over; unless you mention examples of that, I'm afraid your additional example of a particular use of the phrase is useless. We do this so as to ensure that every random phrase used as a convenient rhetorical device by the occasional academic is not given an article that various editors then fill with synthesis-based original research. Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you quote what is says about it? Google Books has the preceeding and following pages, and they make no use of it. --Haemo (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the specific page in the nomination.  ITAQALLAH   23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that doesn't look even remotely sufficient to me. --Haemo (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re:Firefly:To say "several academic books analyze" the word Islamophilia on the basis of a brief passing discussion - only a few sentences long - in one text is a substantial overstatement (see my nom statement for more discussion of this work). If you can substantiate your claim and produce reliable sources offering in depth discussion about the word, as opposed to simply using it or giving it trivial coverage, then it would be much appreciated.  ITAQALLAH   23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:Itaqallah Not sure if you honestly believe what you're saying or just playing games with all those who don't share the same ideas as you. In either case, has anyone ever pointed out that you might have a bad habit of taunting other editors? Wikipolicy considers this a particullary bad habit: Civility. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I expressed my objection to some of your assertions in a civil manner. I try not to make discussions personal, and when I express disagreement I don't intend malice by it. On that basis, I'd prefer if we stuck to discussing the issue at hand.  ITAQALLAH   00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable neoligism, a “protologism” in fact, the article reads like a joke/blog, and I see no room for improvement.  thestick (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable neo. (see WP:NEO. Improvements are unlikely. Undeath (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just about every delete rationale above seems to be treating this as if we were trying to write a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. As Colonel Warden has repeatedly said, this is an article about a topic, not a word. If you don't like the title it can easily be changed to Love of Islam or something else, but whatever title it is given the topic is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile the article's incompatibility with the word and spirit of WP:NEO? What reliable source do you have for "whatever title it is given the topic is clearly notable"?--Agha Nader (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The term "Islamophilia" gets 10,500 Google hits, 29 Google scholar hits, and 29 Google books hits. And no, the latter aren't all books by Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah... but that's still pretty thin considering the number of fly-by references to it and different usages. On the latter point, there is a definite need for citing every single phrase to a specific author and not the general idea.  There is not a great deal of consensus on how to use this term.  The issue I think is best summed up in the current prod for Palestinophilia, "    non-notable neologism, no reliable sources ABOUT the term".  We can find usages of Islamophilia but the reliable sources about the term are scarce. gren グレン 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, how many of those hits are Wikipedia mirrors? The query "Islamophilia -wiki" returns half of the 10,500 you cited. As an experienced admin, would you care to help us interpret WP:NEO?--Agha Nader (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable term. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Notable term? Care to above comments, OK?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your rationale a bit more? On what basis is notability of the term established?  ITAQALLAH   17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete: amateurish synthesis of unrelated concepts. "wearing a veil by women is islamophilia" -- sheesh! `'Míkka>t 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

*Merge into Islamophobia as an example of Islamophobic neologisms.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability has been established by numerous sources provided in the article and ghits. Its used by numerous sources even in the Muslim world (saeeda rahman, al-ahram weekly, etc). Baka man  02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's used but is the term itself discussed? Usage is not sufficient because then we must use OR to agglomerate the primary source usages to write about the term in general. gren グレン 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kidding of course. I support the deletion of this article. Islamophilia is clearly a neologism and a violation of WP:NEO. The article lacks reliable sources about the term. Aside from desperate attempts to keep the article by changing its name, there haven't been good reasons why we should overlook Wikipedia guidelines and keep the article.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NEO keeps being abused in this discussion even though it is neither appropriate nor supports deletion. The -philia suffix is well documented as a normal English usage in the OED which says of it, inter alia,
 * Comment

Formations are found from the mid 19th cent., occurring earliest in sense a. The more general use dates from the late 19th cent.

''It chiefly combines with first elements of Greek origin, but cf. audiophilia n. at AUDIOPHILE n. and adj. Derivatives, canophilia n. at CANOPHILIST n., FRANCOPHILIA n., with first elements of Latin origin, and fuchsinophilia n. at FUCHSINOPHIL adj., sudanophilia n. at SUDAN n. Derivatives]''

The word and concept seem to be well-understood and it is used without needing definition or explanation in articles such as An end to Islamophobia which uses it as the natural antonym of Islamophobia. Since the latter has an article, there's no reason we can't have an article on the converse phenomenon. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reference to "the philia suffix" is very obviously a red herring. The term we're concerned about here is the neologism Islamophilia, not "the philia suffix". Arguing in good faith means making an argument you really believe in, not just throwing anything you can come up with against the wall. TheScotch (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not introduce the issue of neologism and consider it largely irrelevant to the merits of the topic and this article. But since the other side rest their case upon this, the matter must be addressed.  My contention is that Islamophilia is not a neologism but is simply a formation - a natural combination of existing word elements to express a concept which will be readily understood by an English-speaker.  As such, the title is like a phrase.  The article is about this concept - love or enthusiasm for Islam - and, by whatever name, this concept is notable.  Since the opponents seem to be pro-Islam or Islamophile themselves, it is puzzling to understand why they oppose an article on the subject.  I suppose it is the Not invented here problem.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Colonel Warden, your comments are below the standards expected of a Wikipedian. Other editors have accused me of being pro-Hinduvata, and having a bias against South Asia, and now you are making this accusation. Stating the obvious, you can't all be correct. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that you, and the other editors making accusations are completely wrong. Your  behavior is very poor, and I trust the closing admin will disregard your comments. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you, like me, have no particular axe to grind in this matter, then I'm happy to exclude you from the supposed slur of being Islamophile. My point is not a personal one but expresses my intellectual perplexity at the way this topic isbeing treated. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "My contention is that Islamophilia is not a neologism but is simply a formation - a natural combination of existing word elements to express a concept which will be readily understood by an English-speaker. As such, the title is like a phrase.":
 * I'm sorry, but it seems to me that to consider this a good faith argument strains credulity. Pretty much every word was formed from other existing words or existing parts. This is no distinction at all. To call it "like a phrase" is nonsensical; it is a, newly-formed, word--and thus a neologism. Yes, its meaning can be deciphered, but it still represents a momentary, at least, obstacle, and in any case, there would be no excuse for a "Love of Islam" article either: We can reasonably assume any devout practitioner of the religion to love it. You may not "have an ax to grind", but you're certainly behaving like someone who does. TheScotch (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is not nonsense as I back it up with sources. Here's another one, The New Fowler's Modern English Usage:
 * -phile is now the customary combining form (rather than -phil) forming nouns and adjectives denoting fondness for what is specified in the first element (bibliophile, Francophile, etc.).
 * Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's little to be "Q.E.D"-ing about when you're avoiding actually addressing the notability criteria specified in great detail by WP:NEO and elsewhere. Showing us that the philia suffix is common in the English language doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Please understand that.  ITAQALLAH   14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO is not about notability. It is a style guideline and its point is that we shouldn't use terms which are difficult to understand because they are new.  My counter is that the -phile suffix is well-established and understood in English and so WP:NEO does not apply.  Does anyone have any difficulty understanding what the following articles are about: Francophile, Necrophilia, Italophile?  Where there is trouble, such as Oenophile, it comes from the first part, not the second, but in this case of Islam, I doubt that this is a problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument that "other stuff exists" is generally not a sound position to maintain. In the case of these other -philia articles, on what basis do you believe that reliable sources don't exist for these topics which discuss the word itself? You say that WP:NEO doesn't talk about notability, how do yo explain the three paragraphs which I quoted in my nomination statement, which clearly refer to article topics as well as article contents? You can look at WP:NOTABILITY too if you like, which specifies the same criteria as WP:NEO: non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources i.e. discussing the word or phrase itself in detail, not just using it in passing. The guideline quoted in the nomination statement above also states how articles based upon non-notable neologisms will also violate No original research. You need to address these paragraphs and explain to us how they are to be understood, if you believe we have been understanding it incorrectly. Else we'll be going around in circles. Regards,   ITAQALLAH   15:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied that we have adequate sources and that WP:NEO is a red herring. The idea that there is nothing worth saying about a fondness for Islam when there are many articles discussing affection for other subjects such as wine, books, the French and Judaism seems absurd.  My strong impression is that you are Wikilawyering in pursuit of a political goal - you wish to suppress the views of folk such as Daniel Pipes who you suppose to have invented the idea that people might like Islam.  However, Wikipedia is not censored and views which you find offensive, such as the love of Islam, may be written about here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to respond to the personal attacks that frequent your responses, but I will note that you continue to avoid addressing the fact that you need sources about the term, not ones that simply use it. Everything else you raise to evade this point is, as you put it, a red herring.  ITAQALLAH   23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have cited multiple sources and consider them more than adequate in establishing notability. If I draw conclusions about your political position it is because you yourself introduced this aspect with your assertion about Pipes - a bete noire of yours, I suppose.  I have no such pre-conceptions and am still unfamiliar with his work.  If he has much to say on the subject then this would tend to add to its notability.  You seem to simultaneously acknowledge that the topic exists and yet would deny it coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "   -phile is now the customary combining form (rather than -phil) forming nouns and adjectives denoting fondness for what is specified in the first element (bibliophile, Francophile, etc.). Q.E.D. ":
 * So far as I can tell no one here has advocated phil over phile or disputed that words including phile exist. This is utterly beside the point. Q. E. D means the thing which was to proved. This, obviously, is not at all the thing which was to be proved. TheScotch (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "I am satisfied that we have adequate sources and that WP:NEO is a red herring.":
 * You're in no position to be accusing others of planting red herrings, and your immediate adoption of a phrase that I'd previously used to describe your method of disingenuous argument only demonstrates further your bad faith. TheScotch (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Should have been speedied, since this article was already AfD'd and was restored without any additional evidence of notability.  This is a non-notable neologism associated with a single individual whose work is known for its inaccuracy and extremism. csloat (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable academic term. /Slarre (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you please explain your rationale why you are saying it "notable academic term"?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom, Grenavitar and PhilKnight. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (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.