Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phobomania


 * 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, article is a WP:DISRUPT creation. --Core desat 01:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Phobomania

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As per fobomania - Non attributable neologism - Tiswas (t/c) 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NEO -- Whpq 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. This one was created after fobomania went to AFD. — coe l acan — 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous consensus on fobomania.  Jody B   20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not just a neologism, a ridiculous neologism which I strongly suspect noone but the creator has ever used. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * had I not writen that it was invented by the Belgium filosopher Matthias Storme ? But cause wiki has an insulting article "islamophobia" maybe can an "independant" also give room to other opinions ? Limboot 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Fobomania ... despite the pomposity of Matthias Storme's article, I'm not even convinced that he is notable himself. Google searching reveals a few articles in English relating him to shady racism-related dealings, a lot of blogs, and a lot of Wiki-mirrors.  Regardless, a dubious neologism of his is definitely NN.  Eliminator JR  Talk  18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Islam critisism is racism-related. You are writing in a webpage where "islamophobia" is classifies as "discrimination" so your convincing is 0,00000000000 . Maybe you can answer why an other opinion about "islamophobia" may not be heard. ? Limboot 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some reading for you. WP:NOTE, WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:CIVIL. I am aware of WP:BITE but a quick peruse of this account's edit history will suffice. Eliminator JR Talk  19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And maybe you can read dutch wiki where an article about phobomania is not a problem . And further on one has the right only to make an internal link (e.g. phobomania and islamophilia) in an excisting article (e.g. islamophobia))but you are deleting it Limboot 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article fails those guidelines on the Dutch Wiki as well.  Eliminator JR  Talk  21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is in violation of WP:NEO. Furthermore this article may have been made in bad faith. User Limboot may have made this page as a response to Islamophobia. Obviously Wikipedia does not allow counter articles which have the sole purpose of responding to other articles. Limboot said "Wiki has an abusive article about 'islamophobia"' even brought as "discrimination". So wiki has to tolorate other opinions, imho" in the talk. Also see . --Agha Nader 01:56, 19 April 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.