Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia

 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Quite an absurd article. Why can't they accept criticism gracefully like everyone else does, and stop coining such phrases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.110.60 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 May 2005
 * Nominator forgot to add to the VfD log; adding it to today's log. --cesarb 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The lead question is a straw-man. I'm not a religious expert, but this word has been around for years. The definition has to be broadened by someone who is more versed in religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.49.149 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 Jun 2005


 * Nonsense. It may need to be rewritten, but it would be ridiculous to say that islamophobia isn't an important issue today.  Citizen Premier 04:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * added "Keep." in front of the above vote. --cesarb 01:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Islamophobia is similar to anti-Semitism, homophobia, negrophobia etc. It is a fear or hatred against people who are or appear to be Muslim. It should NOT be deleted becasue it is a valid article. See the examples of Islamophobia. Farhanikarim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.12.211 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 May 2005


 * No it is not similar to anti-Semitism, homophobia, negrophobia etc. since it is based on reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.186.121 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 Jun 2005


 * This has been up for a vote before and survived; Remove this at once.Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Irishpunktom\talk 12:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. To use the rhetorical tool so frequently, and successfully, appealed to by some editors: There are 128,000 Google hits for this word. Worth pointing out too that there are daily instances of this phenomenon to be found in routine anonymous vandalism to WP articles! (Speaking of which, ... how come person who wants the VfD won't sign a name?) BrandonYusufToropov 14:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Important issue, though the article is in desperate need of NPOVing. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Farhanikarim. If the Islamophobia article is to be deleted so should Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia articles. AmyAndrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.12.211 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 May 2005


 * Keep. Important issue. I see no problem with the article and all argumets presented against it sound like islamphobia retorics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00gie (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2005
 * This vote was registered by User:N00gie. &mdash; Dan Johnson
 * User:N00gie's only edit. --cesarb 02:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. They may be important issues, but certainly not encyclopediac material. Yes, similar "phobia" articles would need to be deleted if they were written this poorly.  This should be rewritten to have an extensive history of anti-Islamic occurrences (like, the Crusades!), rather than a list attacking politicians. -- BAILOPAN 21:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * BAILOPAN's Second edit. BAILOPAN, am I right in think that you don't want Islamophobia re-written, just more extenisive especially Modern interpretations of what, by modern standards, could be considered Islamophobia ?--Irishpunktom\talk


 * Keep. This is a useful article that would benefit from more editing and contributions rather than removal. The topic of anti-religious rhetoric is important and culturally relevant. -- Contribution by an unregistered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 May 2005


 * Keep This article is important, because as an American I find it awfully clear that there is an anti-Islamic prejudice in the world. However, the article itself is a little POV and does not deal with issue fairly (an easy mistake to make in this type of article)--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep valid, notable topic. Nateji77 08:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Dunc|&#9786; 12:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notable topic. Revolución 13:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mr Bound 19:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. How ironic; the nominator is probably an exemplar of the topic. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 20:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Keep. I found the article informative. Marine 69-71 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Keep. Quite informative.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.18 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 6 Jun 2005
 * Keep Article needs alot of NPOV work to remove Islamist apologetics. Klonimus 03:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Evenhanded treatment of encyclopedic subjects are, well, encyclopedic. Maybe I'm not seeing all this POV other people I'm not complaining about, either. A Man In Black 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. No more absurd than anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.2.203 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 Jun 2005


 * Keep. I didnt believe it existed until I read the comments by the editor who submitted it for deletion. Now, of course, I am a believer. Hornplease 04:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's absurd that this nomination is still even being voted on. ulayiti 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. Article is poorly organized. Its overlap with Persecution of Muslims should be considered when editing both articles. &mdash; Dan Johnson 21:04, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC) Delete. I see little chance of NPOV here. &mdash; Dan Johnson 03:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Keep, but totally overhaul First of all surely this is a constituent part of Persecution of Muslims in that it looks at one of the causes of such persecution. It is also horrendously organized; the first heading is criticism of the concept the article has yet to define. The 'reasons for Islamophobia' is horribly condescending and POV, saying something like 'obviously it is because ignorant Westerners are unable to discern fundamentalist Muslims from non-fundamentalist ones.' The closing idiot's parade of supposed Islamophobes makes no mention of the fact that most of the people mentioned represent the extreme right of their respective country's politics, have little popular support, and by no means represent any kind of majority view. A number of quotes are taken out of context and falsely verified by non-existent footnotes. Unless this is totally whitewashed it needs deleting. Stephen 15:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep; the term is new but relevent to current affairs and widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristocratac (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 Jun 2005
 * Strong keep, per most of the comments above. Kaibabsquirrel 05:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am against deletions (and revertions unless vandalism). I learned something from reading it, and that is all that counts.  That does not mean that any page can't be improved, but I am against deleting it.  --Noitall 21:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. -- Eagleamn 01:52, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Stephen about half-strength. 'Reasons for Islamophobia' are more sophmoric than condescending. NPOV should be applied to 'examples of'. Fabartus 05:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This is obviously a notable neologism and a phenomena worth discussing in it's own right. Axon 14:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but must be totally overhauled. Article as it stands is POV to a laughable degree. Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, just to name a few, have done extensive work on this phenomenon, and their views should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 Jun 2005
 * Keep but must be totally overhauled. --Germen 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs rewrite. Although the term may or may not be a neologism, it is one which has acheived common currency and the article will certainly proves useful for anybody interested in the word. "Islamophobia" is a term frequently used in the British and English-speaking media, and its omission from the Wikipedia would reflect badly on the project.illWill 19:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is not a newly-coined phrase invented here, and the article is not absurd: on the contrary, the subject is worthy of note. I question why some think the article needs a rewrite: in any case whether it needs rewrite work is a separate decision to be made in a forum different from this one. --Mysidia 22:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm pretty sure this was put on VfD by someone who was upset that Islamophilia was gonna be deleted and wanted to prove a point - enough said.  Blackcats 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment on above - This article was put on VfD before islamophilia, so maybe it's the other way round.
 * I stand corrected - I had forgotten to look at the starting time stamps. It looks like Islamophilia was was created after this VfD was under way - likely in response to this one not being deleted.  Blackcats 02:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important, perhaps even excellent article. As there is a consensus on keeping it, can we now remove the VfD banner? --Th&uuml;ringer &#9788; 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion is still in progress. You may not remove a VfD notice while the VfD is active. I have returned the notice to Islamophobia. &mdash; Dan Johnson 02:26, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)


 * Keep. lots of room for improvement. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but probably cleanup. Jon the Geek 03:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .