Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Kelly Martin 05:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Islamophilia

[edit] Read this first

It seems many people are voting here before even reading the article, or doing sufficient research on the subject. The article is not about justifiying a point of view. It DOES NOT, or atleast is not meant to justify islamophobia or attacking Islam. It just describes a term being used increasingly by certain European politicians, sociologists and journalists. Please read the article, help making it NPOV and reconsider your vote.

AGAIN, THE USE OF ISLAMOPHILIA BY PROPONENTS MIGHT BE UNJUSTIFIED. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE. WE CAN'T DELETE AN ARTICLE ON SLAVERY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A WRONG PRACTICE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.238.172 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Note: The initial vote to delete this article has been placed at the top of Votes: Delete for ease of vote counting.


[edit] Votes: Keep

  1. Keep (BloodOfThePoet)Since "Islamophobic/Islamophobia" exists in the popular consciousness, the world press, and the educational establishment -and is gaining ground in the approved lexicon, there is a need to explore its conceptual antithesis, for a host of reasons: including the analytical, political, aesthetic, religious, philosophical, linguistic and even the counter-propagandistic. I commend the article writer, since, in contrast with at least 75% of what gets accepted in the Wikipedia 'canon', this submission is commendably researched, factually reinforced, literate, and, considering the comments for deleting it (a revealingly passionate compendium of reinforcing "interests" in something usually deadeningly dry and stultifyingly neutral like the discussion of a neologism), has hit such a nerve, that, for this reason alone, "Islamophila" deserves to remain. It will draw many new eyes to Wikipedi, and will allow scholars to fulfill their proper function of expanding the understanding of the human intellectual experiment. I find nothing offensive, anti-religious, biased, bigoted or improper with this article or this ingenious coinage. Keep it, and let it become enriched as the understanding of the word, and is roots, deepen in the interpenetration of cultures, "East" and "West". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.176.72 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keep (sockpuppet) This is a useful article that would benefit from more editing and contributions rather than removal. Just look at the amount of blind islamophilia that is doing rounds these days. Do a google search if you think it is neologism.
    • Vote by User:130.203.202.156 -- 15:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep Of course my POV is biased as I am a major contributor to this page. Islamophilia is a neologism, as is islamophobia. I have rewritten the page to make it more NPOV. Critics are invited to improve the quality of the page as they seem fit. --Germen 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep This is not an anti-islam propaganda article. It just describes people who try to atribute unreasonable characteristics to islam, and actually end up doing harm to Islam, for example, claiming that the Quran contains new scientific theories in a cryptic form, which, if decoded, can change the world, etc. I can understand that islamophiles would love to see such an article deleted, since they love to whitewash anything that THEY THINK reflects badly on Islam, or stops short of attributing to Islam all the best qualities possible. (Previous edit by User:70.105.179.96 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  5. Keep (sockpuppet) Though it does certainly needs a cleanup. (Previous edit by User:128.118.126.8 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's two edits are both to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Keep (sockpuppet) It is pretty basic and could be expanded. Keep it. (Previous edit by User:66.214.185.252 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's two edits are both to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Keep and enlarge. (sockpuppet) You should defend free speach. The word suggested makes sense. Keep, keep, keep. (Previous edit by User:82.36.79.32 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Keep (sockpuppet) It is a good start and probably needs expanding. Keep it. (Previous edit by User:209.76.108.207 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
  9. Keep (sockpuppet) STOP ATTACHING SOCKPUPPET TO MY NAME, I only voted once! Either merge stub with related article or keep independent with expectation of expansion. Shouldn't be allowed to fall victim to PC reactionism.
    • Edit: Accusations of 'Sockpuppets' are underhanded attempts to negate votes. The reason the votes are in close proximity is because this Wiki entry has found its way onto a couple of forums. I removed 'sockpuppet' from my entry and included my wiki nickname. I find this tactic very cheap and not in the spirit of wiki. --UlulatingIdiota
      • If you read the Wikipedia:sockpuppet article you will see that any user with less than 100 edits, particularly a new user who immediately joins and starts making controversial edits or voting on VfDs, are generally considered to be sock puppets for the purposes of voting. Which forums has this page been listed on? Axon 07:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (Previous edit by User:141.152.101.211 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
    • The addition to this vote was UlulatingIdiota's first edit. --W(t) 03:09, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  10. Keep (sockpuppet) The vote of the Muslims about Islam is generally charged with emotions and subjectivity. It is not realistic to expect objective opinions from believers of any religion about their own faith. My vote is to keep it and expand on it. (Previous edit by User:72.21.32.122 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User has four edits, one to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
  11. keep (sockpuppet) and expand very topical if islamophobia is in so should be Islamophilia could do with expanding (Previous edit by User:172.188.217.175 -Blackcats 07:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) - User's only edit is to this VFD page. --FCYTravis
  12. keep (sockpuppet) - This is not islampobia - it is rational and it is free speech —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.149.56 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 Jun 2005. (User's only edit is to this VFD page. Axon 13:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  13. Keep (sockpuppet)( - The article accurately describes the characteristics of a certain group of people from an objective POV. Deleting it would be the irrational thing to do. Definitely keep it and expand on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.195.42.126 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 Jun 2005.
  14. Keep I know some people myself that i could describe in the way this article describes islamophiles. But this article is in need of work. It does not yet catch the exact essence of its subject. I accept also rename, if a better name is found Tuohirulla 22:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Keep - with overhaul (sockpuppet) The premise that the feeling of Islamophilia must inherently be irrational is incorrect. There are Sinophiles who love China and Chinese culture and Francophiles who love France and French culture. I have never heard these philes described as irrational.
  16. Keep → JarlaxleArtemis 01:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Keep but overhaul - The article is meant to describe a certain ideology, not to "target" it. Unfortunately, the article is defintely not NPOV in its present form, and was probably written as a reaction to the POV article on islamophobia. However, I don't see how it is "irrational." Semitophilia does not exist, so there is no article on it. This cannot be said about Islamophilia which is a reasonably popular ideology. A small example is here Although it needs to be overhauled, I am surprised that people want it (and islamophobia )to be deleted. There is no dearth of articles on wikipedia which produce less than 10 google results, and I checked on FAQs that low google hits is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The term has a very healthy web search to group search ratio on google, so it doesn't seem to be promoted by any one particular group. I don't think it is not a good idea to delete articles simply because in their present form they are POV. There's a POV tag for that. Also, google "Islamophilie" (French for Islamophilia) and you'll get many more hits, and some pages belong to the 90s, even before September 11, etc, so the term is not very new either. ~~deeptrivia
  18. Keep (sockpuppet) As islamophobia ) exist so does Islamophilia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.80.16.39 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 Jun 2005.
  19. Keep (sockpuppet) The phenomenon is real, and deserves its own entry. Although I agree it needs to be expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.153.163 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 Jun 2005.
  20. KEEP (sockpuppet) This article brings some balance to the POV given by islamic propaganda and twisting history represented on this site. But the article needs to be expanded upon and referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.129.122.1 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 Jun 2005.
  21. KEEP (sockpuppet) The phenomenon is not only real, it is a prevalent rhetorical paradigm among a number of influential commentators such as Karen Armstrong and Carly Fiorina. The article should be kept and is deserving of expansion. THHuxley 16:30, 2005 Jun 13
    • Important note: There is no User:THHuxley. The above comment was really posted by User:198.89.160.22.
  22. KEEP (sockpuppet) Islamophobic is a much used (and even feared) accusation. Self censorship is an increasingly real problem. The article is not the most erudite and does need tidying up, but it adds to the debate, simply by being there. Nassar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.56.106 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 Jun 2005.
  23. KEEP (sockpuppet) Current form is OK, but expansion would only help. This a good term to explain the irrationality that goes along with the territory of making such claims as stated in the article. user:Fresca Scongili Butifara June 16, 2005
    • Does not appear to be a real user --Irishpunktom\talk
  24. KEEP (sockpuppet) This would be an introduction to islamophilia and should be expanded to be meaningful. For example, attributing the success of Spain to the occupation and colonialism of the Moors and Arabs who invaded is something to be explored. Attributing scientific achievements made by Assyrians, Persians, Copts and others to Islam should be expanded upon. Jsaid2009
    • Users first and Second edit[1] --Irishpunktom\talk
  25. Keep (sockpuppet) Otherwise delete Islamophobia, which is logically equally POV. Deleting this article would itself be an act of POV! Dragonlance 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes: Delete

  1. Initial deletion vote — Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Short POV piece, no chance it will ever be encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 06:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete per 'squirrel. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delete - un-notable POV slander piece. Blackcats 09:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delete POV attack page. JamesBurns 11:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delete. Islamophilia returns 248 hits. This article should be deleted and made a subsection of a different article, that might exist in the future, such as Islamophile, which returns a respectable 15,700 google hits. Wikibofh 15:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delete, neologism. - Mustafaa 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delete attack page. Nothing here worth keeping. carmeld1 10:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Delete neologism. Axon 08:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Delete - sockpuppet limit exceeded (apologies to RickK) --FCYTravis 08:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delete - The differences between the word "Islamophobia" and "Islamophilia": "Islamophobia" is actually used (Google search for Islamophilia: 215 results; for Islamophobia: 119,000 — obviously the latter is the real word); the article about it does not overflow with bias. As for the argument that an article about "Islamophilia" makes it "fair" to have an article about Islamophobia: I see no "Semitophilia" articles! No "homophilia" articles (simply redirection to the homosexuality page). An encyclopedia cannot contain this bias. No "Islamophilia" nonsense, please. What you define as being "Islamophilic" is simply following Islam. And to call Islam, or any religion, "irrational" is biased and stepping out of the role of an encyclopedia. Emiellaiendiay 10:36 a.m., 12 June 2005
  12. Delete (sockpuppet) - This article is completely irrational and serves no useful purpose. It is inherently biased because it targets a specific ideology. As already said, there are no articles on "Semitophilia", "homophilia", etc. This article tries to pathologize the followers of Islam and non-Muslims who are tolerant of Islam and Muslims. Moreover, this article is unscholarly. It should be deleted.
  13. Delete, neologism. --W(t) 02:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  14. Delete, lacks references. Alphax τεχ 10:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Delete hopefully none of the sockpuppets here's votes will be taken seriouslyYuber(talk) 22:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Delete (sockpuppet)POV211.100.12.60 15:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Delete (sockpuppet) Neologism 63.218.109.130 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Delete (sockpuppet) ORIGINAL RESEARCH205.136.240.131 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Delete hopelessly POV piece, not particularly well-established term, and vote rigging. Should the article be kept, it needs some really, really, really heavy NPOVing, and I doubt there would be that much left after that. -- AlexR 02:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Delete Neologism with a hint of WP:POINT. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Delete. Neologism, supported by a surplus of drive-by voters and sockpuppets. --Carnildo 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a neologism. Search for 'islamophilie/islamophile'. --Germen 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • When a search for those two in English on google I get 40 and 926... and for islamophilie in English most were in French... gren 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I got over 200 in English for Islamophilia. This is more of a European word, so you get many more in French, Dutch, etc. For proving that the concept does exist, it suffices to show its use in any language. So, just because the results are in French/Dutch doesn't mean an article on it should not be in English Wikipedia. I don't know other European languages so haven't searched in other languages. User:deeptrivia
  22. Delete - This is a neologism with no clear definition. Definitely would involve original research. Islamophile is a legitimate dict. def. about someone who tries to learn about Islam but to say Islamophilia is the attribution of positive qualities to Islam, Muslims or the Islamic civilization, beyond what can be rationally attributed is incredibly subjective and does not have to do with the suffix -phile. gren 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Explain why this is subjective. "Islamophobia" and "Prejudice" have a similar definition and both have a Wikipedia entry too. Be consequent. --Germen 22:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Islamophobia is fear of Islam, that can be of any kind of Islam. Islamophilia takes a specific definition of Islam and compares someone's views on Islam to that. Therefore there is a necessary definition of what Islam "truly is" and then you are complaiming that someone's view and interpretation of Islam is illegitimate. That is the subjectivity I speak of. gren 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Gren, 'Islamophobia' is partisan as well. Fear and hate are subjective. 'Phobia' generally is reserved to irrational and pathological fear which implies that all fears for islam are pathological, which is, of course, non-NPOV. --Germen 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Whether "Islamophobia" has an entry or not is irrevelant in this discussion. Why are you so intent on keeping this, Germen? Emiellaiendiay 22:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Because 'islamophilia' describes a real phenomenon which is worthy of study. Of course attempts to make the article more NPOV are welcomed. --Germen 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. Delete. Attack page. Postdlf 01:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who is being attacked?
    • This article is certainly less POV and more objective than one on Islamophobia.
  24. EXTERMINATE! Unsalvagable, unencyclopedic NOISE. The fact that many google hits exist makes it very LOUD noice. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. Delete - unencyclopedic POV piece. -- Joolz 10:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Delete. Unencyclopedic attempt to discredit Islam. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Delete. Totally POV, and unsalvageable neology. ~~~~ 18:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Delete, not a real word. Rhobite 20:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Delete. Neither this nor Islamophobia are worthy of encyclopdic entries; these are Wiktionary entries at best. Islamophobia and Islamophilia are neither recognized psychological conditions nor widespread pop culture buzzwords. Islamophobia is already represented on the encylopedia by it's entry at -phobia#I and Islamophilia can likewise be inserted into -philia#I. Fernando Rizo 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes: Conditional

  1. Merge with Islamophobia - in the hope that they will somehow cancel each other out and implode. Failing that, delete. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Overhaul or DELETE (sockpuppet) The article needs to either be modified to state that the term is used primarily by hindu fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists or deleted altogether. As is the article doesn't even make any sense. I have no understanding of what the point is supposed to be. Also needs references. And why is it listed under "phobias"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben.waterhouse (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)., user's first edit.
  3. Merge with Islamophobia, as per Grutness. — Dan Johnson TC 19:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

  1. Point of order - I was of the understanding, indeed I was told as much, that only registered users votes' count. When I voted as an anon, way back when, I was told to reg-up and vote again, because my vote would not count. Was I mis-informed, do Un-regged vites by anon users count, or are there a fair amount of votes here not to be counted? --Irishpunktom\talk
    • You are correct: the anonymous votes, as well as sockpupper votes, above will (hopefully) be ignored when tallying votes. Axon 17:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • He's wrong, and right. Anonymous editors can vote but if there is doubt about a vote by an anon it may be ignored. This is to allow regular people who only ever use fixed ip to participate in VfD and other surveys. Admins close these discussions manually and we're pretty good at spotting jiggery pokery. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jsaid2009 This request for a deletion is based on several logical fallacies. The first is called Argumentum ad Numerum - because more people share the opinion, it somehow must be right. Because Islamophobia garners more google hits than Islamophillia, it must be true. Before Copernicus, the earth was flat because more people believed it. The second argument is equally invalid. I see no Naziphobia or Naziphillia, therefore everyone has no interest in the idealogical system of Nazism? Given that the Nazi party is in power in Austria, this argument holds no water —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.195.104 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • The above statement appears to be a Chewbacca Defense. — Dan Johnson TC 14:07, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
      • I believe that's what's known as argumentum ad chewbaccum. silsor 08:24, Jun 20, 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Islamophilia_a437.html"