Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobiaphobia


 * 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 of the debate was complicated.. Counting, I see 25 "votes" for deletion, 12 for keep, and 5 for merge to Islamophobia. However, four of the keep votes come from anonymous voters, one from a user with two edits, and one unsigned vote, which is discounted. Using some judgement here, I think that this is strong enough to delete. Bratsch e talk 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobiaphobia
Note the extra -phobia. This article was created explicitly (it seems to me) to make a point about Islamophobia. Justification on the Talk page reads, "It's true that this page was created in part to be a knock on the Islamophobia article, that's a fair point. However, at the same time, this article is basically as legitimate as the Islamophobia article itself is... why exactly should it be deleted while the original specious article remains?" I refer us all to WP:POINT. Please, please, delete. bikeable (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete TheRingess 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism, at the least. --Kinu 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep See the other keep vote regarding WP:POINT, and whilst it may be fairly unusual as a neologism, the concept is common. Note how often (check Google News, et cetera) people have evinced apparent fear of being called Islamophobes. 66.171.247.236 06:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the love of Eris, Wikipedia is not for words you made up on the spot. This protologism has no currency whatsoever, and I'm unconvinced that we even need an article on the concept it describes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep People fearing overreaction regarding recent events is a real problem - PseudonympH
 * Delete. Word made up on the spot; violates WP:NOR. Weregerbil 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per A Man In Black. What's next? Islamophobiaphobiaphobia? The fear of those who fear fearing Islam? Mi kk er ... 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. While references are given, they are about Islamophobia, and do not seem to verify the term Islamophobiaphobia.  Thus it seems like this article is original research.  Wikipedia is not the place to define and attempt to popularize new words. --W.marsh 06:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A quite useful conceptual model presented in a manner that is both lucid and witty. While the term itself may be uncommon it evokes the increasingly common position many educated people find themselves in of trying to balance sincere attempts to address orientalist critiques of the western perception of the other and a respect for the values of pluralism with a dedication to the tenets of some of the more attractive facets of liberal humanism, many of which seem to be under direct assualt by, at the very least, a loud and vocal minority in the Ummah. Frankly if this is erased it is extremely likely that at some point in the future a far more offensive entry that covers similar ground with less skill will appear.152.163.100.132 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is a neologism (which the author states it is), what makes it one any moreso than any word with "phobia" tacked onto the end (including islamophobia). If it is not, it is just as self indulgent. To legislate entries such as this is to legislate common sense, which I beleive the author has in abundance, as well as a sense of humor.65.96.64.93 07:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to give the page creator some credit regardless of the actual validity of the article. I'm still laughing at the word. --Kizor 07:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep yes, its a neologism, but thats the same as all emerging concepts. if being labeled an islamophobic will hinder someones ability to freely discuss an argument(and suffer an attack ad hominem), then this term correctly applies. please look at the multiple other places/articles where this term is mentioned on the internet before you ignorantly say that it does not belong here.Tesseracter 07:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Excluding Wikimirrors, I found two mentions via Google, one of which was on Usenet. If anyone can cite others, please don't hesitate to do so. --Kinu 07:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Try searching for "Islamophobia-phobia", which a simple google search for "Islamphobiaphobia" misses. That search gives 95 mentions, which while not a huge number, is further evidence of this not being original research, but rather a real concept. Bibigon 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: google for spoon-phobia, floor-phobia, joke-phobia, &lt;any-common-noun&gt;-phobia. Appears to have little value as evidence. Weregerbil 10:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please see the talk page of the article and the proposed stylistic changes which would remove the WP:POINT violation. Additionally, this does not violate WP:NOR, as the links given in the article do reference Islamophobiaphobia, as does this article at the Rationalist Association and this one at the New Criterion deals with the concept as well. Bibigon 07:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a legitimate concept and well-deserving of a Wikipedia article. I will agree though that the current article is a bit rough and seems to be aimed at parodying the Islamophobia article. Keep the page, improve the article. 69.162.14.111 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 08:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lunis Neko 10:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. At first glance it seems contrived and perhaps silly, but the concept exists.  I would like the ones calling for deletion to explain how one 'phobia' is valid (Islamophobia) but this 'phobia' is not.  Logophile 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have, I thought. Islamophobia has been written about extensively by good sources, see WP:V and Reliable sources.  Islamophobiaphobia has been used on a handful of forums, which are specifically defined as unacceptable sources.  --W.marsh 15:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely the same contrived and silly logic would allow for creation of Islamophobiaphobiaphobia, Islamophobiaphobiaphobiaphobia, and so on as far as you want to go. Why not Arachnophobiaphobia, or Homophobiaphobiaphobia?  Neologisms are fun!  bikeable (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, because unlike those, Islamophobiaphobia is a real and somewhat common idea, while the others exist only in the realm of humor. Please argue on the merits of Islamophobiaphobia itself please, not on the basis of a slippery slope fallacy. Did Islamophobiaphobia exist as a term before this article? Yes it did. Was it a serious idea? Absolutely. What real basis is there to delete this article other than the fact that it appears to bother you? On the merits of the concept itself, you have failed to give anything substantive. Bibigon 16:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, "homophobiaphobiaphobia" gets many times more hits than "Islamophobiaphobia", but we certainly don't need an article on it: it's a neologism that has not come into widespread use, and not every state of mind a person can have requires a made-up name and an encyclopedia article. If you really think the concept of Islamophobiaphobia deserves a mention, and if this is not all just a WP:POINT stunt, add a paragraph to Islamophobia mentioning the new usage.  No one learns anything from an article which is large find-and-replace edited from the original.  bikeable (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It could be merged with Islamophobia, perhaps.  But I don't see a slippery slope here.  There is a phobophobia AKA phobiaphobia, although wikipedia doesn't have an entry for it (fear of phobias would seem to be an inconsequential hypocondria), but not phobophobophobia.  Additionally, one finds some more hits on Google when searching not on "Islamophobophobia" or "Islamophobiaphobia" or "Islamophobia-phobia", but on "fear of Islamophobia," which amounts to the same thing.  Actually, results from that search indicate there could be two kinds: people afraid of being called Islamophobes, but also people afraid of being victims of Islamophobia, although this is not addressed in the WP entry (similarly, one finds a homophobiaphobia).  The latter (fear of being victims of Islamophobia) seems fairly notable in that a Guardian poll indicated 2/3 of Muslims in Britain were considering leaving because of their fear of islamophobia.  There's also a Times article by Mick Hume that states "fear of Islamophobia today is considerably stronger than the phenomenon itself." Schizombie 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism and Point. 209.11.40.139 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the preceding was me, I got kicked off somehow. Mak emi 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not a great fan of the 'Google test', but in this case, the failure is so spectacular. --Doc ask?  22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, try searching for other spellings, like "Islamophobia-phobia" and you get a different story. Bibigon 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Admitted neologism coined in 2004. While this article attempts to provide verification, it has not achieved widespread usage. Capitalistroadster 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems a reasonable use and a reasonable article in light of current events. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. not a dictionary, not for things made up in school one day..  Also, article was originated explicitly as a POV fork, which is absolutely prohibited.  If there's any useful content in the current version, merge to Islamophobia. Ikkyu2 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article did not originate as a POV fork. I'm not sure where you're getting that accusation from? Can you please elaborate? Bibigon 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See the nomination and the article itself. The article, the word that titles it, and its referent cannot exist except in the context of Islamophobia; therefore they should be discussed in the main article, Islamophobia.  Islamophobia is not large enough to require a size fork, and separating out a chunk of text to write about a particular point of view or reaction to Islamophobia is the precise definition of a POV fork.  Ikkyu2 08:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per lots of reasons above --Aim Here 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. Most of the content looks like someone's essay, consiting from trivias and speculations. Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to perhaps rewrite it, which I've offered to do, rather than to delete it entirely. The reason the content looks like that is because it was admittedly, done partly as a parody of the Islamophobia page, in addition to conveying a real idea. I have offered to remedy the stylistic issues if the article will be kept. Bibigon 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Blnguyen 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Reactions to Islamophobia or Islamophobia. The concept certainly exists, but this neologistic name has never been verifiably used to describe it. Ziggurat 00:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologicpolemicspamvanitycruft. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Is Islamophobiaphobiaphobia coming next? Wicked bad precedent.  I noticed most of the keep votes here are red link users/anons.  Maybe I'm being sockpuppetophobic...  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as non-notable neologism. Cedars 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The purpose of this VfD should be to judge the notability of the neologism and not its offensiveness, etc. I am unsure personally, but I think that the focus of this debate should be the mainstreamness of the references, not your personal opinion on the term. No vote. Keep, see below. Savidan 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose to judge the notability of the neologism, or the whole article? The article could be renamed Fear of Islamophobia or something similar (Reactions to Islamophobia was mentioned above), the phenomenon is of some note for the reasons I noted above even if the word isn't.  However, it's something that could be merged into the Islamophobia article. Schizombie 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to islamophobia. The article is too well-researched to delete. But the fact that all but one of the references of this article concern islamophobia but not "islamophobiaphobia" is telltale of the article's content. It's a POV-fork; send it back. Melchoir 06:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of those references portray not only accusations of islamophobia but the reactions, often apologetic and cautiously conciliatory, to said claims despite their hostile and sometimes inherently threatening delivery. This is arguably islamophobiaphobia, thus justifying their inclusion here. 66.171.247.236 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with most of that, but neither the term "Islamophobiaphobia" nor the abstract concept of Islamophobiaphobia is identified in enough secondary sources. This material belongs in a section under Islamophobia. Melchoir 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Vsion (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Ziggurat. If your only problem with the article is the name, move it to something which isn't original research. The concept does exist. Pepsidrinka 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge; while no one is arguing that the phenomenon exists, the name is ridiculous, and the concept can be covered in the main Islamophobia article. --DDG 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra super keep Finally a concept that articulates the racism and bigotry which is levelled at people exercising freedom of speech.--CltFn 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with islamophobia, since the concept is at least as legitimate and far more relevent. You could also delete both articles, since islamophobia isn't a serious concept, just a part of popular imagination, and therefore not worth fearing in the first place.
 * Delete as neologism. No prejudice here, it's just not yet a word. I see a lot of red herrings about free speech. The old expression, "Freedom of the press exists only to those who own one," applies here. You want total control over your written word? Go get a website hosted, or write a blog. This is an encyclopedia and it has rules. Ifnord 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Being a neologism isn't grounds for deletion by itself. As evidence of this, I would cite the article on Islamophobia for instance, or the many other articles on neologisms. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but none of those rules are that neologisms are all to be deleted. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete "Islamophobiaphobia is a neologism..." - that says everything I need to know. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As referenced above, this by itself is not grounds for deletion, which is something else you might need to know. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Adding references to back up an argument doesn't make it not original research. CDC (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * References are exactly what differentiate original research from legitimate articles. Bibigon 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Original research is often some author's "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments" (quoting "What is original research at WP:OR). Consider this - academic researchers make their living doing original research, and good original academic research is heavily referenced. But that's not what we do. CDC (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not encyclopedia material. Leaning towards WP:Point, if anything.--  Colle |[[Image:Locatecolle.png]]| Talk  -- 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Islamophobia. It has relevant points and material, but is a neologism and violates WP:POINT. JoshuaZ 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Adding references to back up an argument doesn't make it not original research": that's what caused me to change my vote from abstain to Keep. I hate neologisms just as much as the next wikipedian. Ask anyone who's seen me around AfD. In fact, I probably hate them the most of any Wikipedian, but this is a notable neologism, which has gotten serious play in mainstream news and political venues (no pun intended). Merge just doesn't seem to do it justice. It is a derivitive neologsim, in a sense. But we would never consider merging Globalization and Anti-globalization. The POV problems, as extensively noted above, justify only a cleanup, not a delete. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my further comment above. This is original research, even though it has references. The interpretation of those references to make a novel is what is original here. You'll notice that none of these lovely "references" actually use this ridiculous neologism. CDC (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should note, too, in answer to some of the ridiculous suggestions for aritcles above that we would create articles for those terms if and only if they were in common use. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:55, 20 February 2006 (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.