Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"

 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 DELETE. Golbez 18:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"
Unencyclopedic, POV fork. LevelCheck is also trying to create an islamofascism-stub template. RickK 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. LevelCheck is behaving disruptively again. I'd urge all subesequent people not to vote on this article and simply let it be deleted--it was created in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) 21:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Super Extreme Keep Facts are NPOV regardless of if you disgree with them or they make your uncomfortable. This list contains verifiable information. It is encyclopedic Klonimus 00:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * False cause. Also, WP:POINT or we could have List of people who have voted for deletion of list of people who have used the word "Islamofascism". Radiant_* 08:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Somebody is clearly trying to create articles in order to make their point. Not the way to go about discussing things in Wikipedia. Delete, and tell the person not to do it again. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck. LevelCheck, I hope you respond there soon. Meelar (talk) 22:43, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everything in the article has sources listed. What exactly do you object to? LevelCheck 21:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete with extreme prejudice, maybe even a speedy. WP:POINT. --Idont Havaname 22:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article's existence violates NPOV. ESkog 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How? It's verifiable and doesn't promote a POV. Klonimus 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ISLAMOFASCISM. Why aren't I on the list? Delete. Nestea 22:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as fascismcruft. This fight over this particularly lame neologism is getting ridiculous. A Man In Black 23:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic. &mdash; Sesel wa  00:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 02:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete for disruption I see no reason this information can't be in Islamofascism. Gazpacho 03:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Becuase that article is protected due to constant Islamist edit wars. The pre-vandalism Islamofascism article was getting rather long 40+Kb, so it makes sense to split this list out.Klonimus 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless trivia. Or else create List of people who have used the word "the" and List of people who have used the word "[insert offensive epithet here]" for everything on List of political epithets&mdash;and List of ethnic slurs too, while we're at it. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain -- if notability is a valid criterion for inclusion, then this debate seems to indicate to me that Islamofacism is fast becoming a notable phenomenon within Wiki, whatever its position in the wider world.--Simon Cursitor 08:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That would make it a neologism, so delete per WP:NOT. Radiant_* 08:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is clearly a way to get around the other articlesYuber(talk) 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; no ifsandsorbuts. &mdash; RJH 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * delete if only because of possible extensions- list of people who have used the word "homosexuality"? Sensation002 23:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I want to write List of people who have used the word spork. CDC   (talk)  05:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm changing it to Merge into Islamofascism when that article is unlocked. And to to respond to the neologism objections: it's been around for at least four years now, has entered the lexcion of significant thinkers and writers and should be regarded as tending toward permanent.  Homophobia is a pretty new term as well, and not everyone accepts it.  Are we going to delete it as well?  Of course not!  It's an important term about an important topic employed by numerous people, even if you don't agree with their stance/terminology.
 * I just added another author I know to have employed the term in print (Victor Davis Hanson). The only thing I would do is possibly Move it to "Authors...etc." because most of these people are print or electronic writers not TV-talking heads.  I would also Deleted the ridiculous crossed swords and date-palm logo and the "Islamofascism" category.  Oh, and I also realize that this guy has been going around starting these cats & such to offend people - and I voted to delete one of them - but the decision to delete should be based on the encyclopedic merits of the article, not the perceived intentions of its creator. --Jpbrenna 23:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * updated --Jpbrenna 01:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Do you have a citation for Victor Davis Hanson? I love VDH. Perhaps you could be WP:BOLD, and add it to the Islamofascism talk page, and/or User:Klonimus/Islamofascism where I am maintaining a mirror of the Islamofascism article from before it was vandalised. Klonimus 05:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. I concur with the Merge vote above. --Kenyon 06:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic.--Prem 03:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. --Carnildo 06:34, 14 May 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.