Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oikophobia (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   keep. Tone 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oikophobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a close call, so putting to AFD for more opinions. Extensive sourcing, but appears to be a neologism 5 years old. Possibly suitable for transwiki to Wiktionary, but basically a dictdef (if any dictionary even lists it). Durova 318 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- certainly seems to be more than just a dic-def to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it is certainly odd and badly formatted, but it has citations, so I'm leaning towards keeping it, with fixes. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article contains rather more than a dictionary definition and I expect will expand further over time as this concept is more widely discussed in academic circles. Ben Finn (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oik! Oik! Keep as notable enough for its own article  Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (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.