Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia-phobia


 * 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 and redirect to Islamophobia. A contentious topic but WP:NEO covers this and arguments for delete and redirect on both listings are most convincing. KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia-phobia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The term is covered extensively, not just "used", in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islamophobia and merge the reliably sourced content (which isn't much) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep per meatsgains. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, not seeing it as a likely search term so no need for redirect. Artw (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Several citations define and discuss the concept and term. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islamophobia per above. I don't think this will ever evolve into an article of much quality. There's much too little media coverage for it to be considered notable. What little information it has can easily be put into the criticism section of Islamophobia. Event horizon51  (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islamophobia per above. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. Even if it had more coverage so as to be marginally notable, it's still better covered in what is effectively its parent article. It's possible there's a place to mention in the political correctness article, too? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Rhododendrites and WP:POVFORK, due to absence of secondary sources. Primary sources (opinion pieces) in HuffPo (partisan), New York Post (tabloid), Fox News (partisan; claims to have coined the term in 2016), and the New Humanist (good for a primary source, but insufficient) are not RS for the purposes of GNG. Secondary sources are required by WP:NEO as well; without them it's definitionally impossible to write an article satisfying WP:NPOV, which not okay because the topic is politicized. FourViolas (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect (preferably just delete) per above (WP:NEO/WP:GNG). The word itself appears to be used in a tongue-in-cheek manner in articles that are criticizing the concept of Islamophobia as a useless neologism. It's an intentionally silly term. A good hint that this isn't widely remarked upon: Piers Benn and Gutfield, writing three years apart, both appear to believe they've just coined a new term when they use it. Nblund (talk) 00:36, 29 June 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.