Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze

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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamikaze

Non Notable phrase used as a POV attack on Islam and Muslims. Neologism at best. Irishpunktom\^talk 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Nom.--Irishpunktom\^talk 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, I personally don't like this term but when the search term "Islamikaze" returns nearly 16,000 Google hits and finds a BBC page referenced by the term from links pointing to it. The non-notable argument seems specious at best. Netscott 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Its not nearly a case for a speedy keep, and those google links are 1. Overwhelmingly non-English, and 2. mostly referring to a Book by Raphael Israeli. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if we subtract the term wikipedia from the search (due to self-referencing concerns) the search still returns over 11,000 hits (which of course is still notable). As well, I doubt you've done a proper survey of those 11,000+ hits and so are not in a position to say with any authority whether the majority of them refer to the book you've mentioned or not (or are in a language other than English). Netscott 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have to have any authority to make a statement on a Deletion page! Why are you being so very aggressive? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
      • See CrazyRussian's and my comments below for a more accurate count (hundreds, not thousands). bikeable (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article was originally tagged {{empty}} twice, then prodded as Islamophobic. The term is Islamophobic, the article is not. It states clearly that the term is pejorative. Compare with Cat:Pejorative political terms which is chock full of such things, and they're notable, and it's fine. Term is reasonably popular, pre-dates 9/11, and gets 457 unique google hits [1], which means it has entered usage. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Netscott and Crz. Joe 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A few hundred google hits -- I get 286 unique with Islamikaze -wikipedia -raphael, and many of these still reference the book -- do not an English word make. bikeable (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. 1652186 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Funny --mboverload 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite to be specifically about the book by R. Israeli. With respect to Netscott's argument, one does not have to investigate every google hit to make generalizations about usage: a stratified sampling is enough, and to me it seems to me to be mostly about the book. As well, I could not find any instance of the term in the BBC article you cited; I think that only came up because people linked to the BBC article using the word. --Saforrest 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite right -- the BBC article never uses the term, but it appears in articles pointing to the BBC. this is of no use whatsoever. bikeable (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Irishpunktom. SouthernComfort 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless completely rewritten to be about the book. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef and neologism. Transwiki to wiktionary if you like. Шизомби 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Original research, POV attack, neologism, etc. --ManiF 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Netscott's comments. -- Karl Meier 07:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (per bikeable) dicdef. Robin Johnson 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as highly offensive neologism. Fagstein 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is a neologism, it does not have widespread use, and it is short enough to just go to Wiktionary. Faz90 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism, potentially A6. When you remove the book author's name from your Google search, the majority of these hits vanish. Let the name be reused when someone writes about the book itself. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Irishpunktom. Raphael1 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect - either to Suicide attack or to an article on Raphael Israeli's book. The word is not widespread or significant enough to have an article about it and the concept it conveys is nothing new. --Spondoolicks 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree totally with Irishpunktom. --K4zem 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable, verifiable, fulfills all WP policy requirements. Yes, is a POV, but stating what an opinion is (rather than stating it as fact) is a big part of Wikipedia - see for example Tony_Blair#Domestic_politics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cynical (talk • contribs) .

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.