Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lusophobia (2nd 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 09:41Z 

Lusophobia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

For those not up on their latin, Lusophobia refers to hostility of Portuguese people. The problem is that the term is not in widespread usage - as evidenced by a google search which reveals only about 300 non-wikipedia results. Upon searching scholarly databases such as JSTOR I discovered that the term "lusophobia" has been used by some legitimate historians, but only to describe a period of intense animosity towards the Portuguese in 19th century Brazil. This subject is addressed in only a single sentence in the article. The rest of the article reads like an essay countering the mean things people have said about Portugal. These things are either not racist (for example one can note that a country is poor without showing hostility to that country's people) or uncited. Since there is so little legitimate content here, and the article remains almost entirely unchanged since its creation in 2005, I believe that deletion is appropriate. GabrielF 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that a previous AfD was closed as no-consensus at Articles for deletion/Lusophobia. GabrielF 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has improved a tad since the last AfD and is actually in better shape then some of the stuff listed on Category:Racism. It is an antiquated and scholarly word so G-hits is not the best parameter. It an encyclopedic subject relavent to Wikipedia's coverage of ethnic racism. This article could certainly be better but AfD is not a substitute for clean up. 205.157.110.11 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if we take out the stuff that's irrelevant and/or uncited we're left with what? Three sentences? Barely more than a dictionary definition. Even among scholars the term is barely used. I counted about 10 unique articles that used the word. Also, since nobody has seen fit to fix up the article in nearly two years and the Portuguese wikipedia article is only a sentence, I don't see much chance of future improvement. As to your point about other racism articles, I agree, a lot of them are crap. That's why I nominated Hibernophobe and Anti-Iranianism for deletion. Being better than other similar articles is not grounds for keeping.GabrielF 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not enough to be an encyclopedic article, but still notable in a more dictionary-meaning sense.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT I agree that this article is a dictionary entry and a lot of stuff irrelevant. Jeepday 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the term seems to legitimately describe a historical period of anti-Portuguese sentiment in Brazil, per Google Books and Google Scholar results. More general use seems to be informal and thus inappropriate in the article, particularly the section that seems like it should be Stereotypes of Portuguese people or some such. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per immediate above. Alex43223Talk 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Week keep. If the article could stick to the stated topic and not mix all sorts of random tidbits of history, it would be so much better. I'd like to give the article a chance for improvement for now. -- Kyok o  08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as written, it's not a record of the historical period. Dicdef. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, soapboxing. Couldn't even find the word on OED, it's by all intents and purposes a neologism. Lampman 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Dhartung —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Vonce (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - The article may need to be improved, no doubt, but it deals with a real phenomenon. Who cares if the word is unsual? Let me just add that it's not at all unsual in Portuguese and in Portugal! The Ogre 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sourcing for an article, and if we had access to more historical Portugese texts likely easy to expand further. - Denny 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the articles on Portugal and the Portuguese language. The vast majority of cultural groups have not been oppressed on a large enough scale to warrant a separate article, especially if the conflicts have been limited to standard reciprocated xenophobia between groups. NetOracle 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: collection of unrelated trivias put together. There's mee-too tendency on Wikipedia in last couple of years to invent "XYZ-phobia" like article for every nationality. I would label it as OR but that's offense to word research. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article isn't good yet, but it may and should become. This is no reason for deletion. Deletion would also look like a lusophobic act... Velho 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung. Colchicum 03:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep just as other similar articles on "phobia" topics.Biophys 03:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Dhartung.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable prejudice. Never heard of it before.--Sefringle 06:10, 12 February 2007 (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.