Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Arabism

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. Article appears to be well-sourced, even if suffering NPOV problems. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Arabism

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

The notability of this term, is barely in use in academic circles.[1] And it is not an historical term as the article claims. It seems to be a neologism, or a newly coined term, and the entire article reeks of

• Strong Delete: Per above. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:42 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • You have listed yourself as an inclusionist in your userpage. Out of all articles, why would you single this one out for exclusion?--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I am not an inclusionist if it comes to original research. Also, there aren't many people who are actually anti-Arab. Not more so than they are anti-Swede or anti-Japanese etcetera. What people dislike, is Islam, and sometimes, they are anti-Arab because of Islam. Hence, I believe that some of the material in this article should be merged into Islamophobia, and that's because I am an inclusionist. If you can show me a lot of historical hatred of Arabs and perhaps even persecution, I will change my mind and vote keep. So far, I'm not convinced that people are more anti-Arab than they are anti-Russian. And yes, believe me, Russians are very hated throughout the world. We don't have an article about Anti-Russianism, do we? I thought so. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:51 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - We cannot tie together a bunch of isolated incidents and present them as a unified phenomenon. To do so violates
  Wikipedia policy against original synthesis. The Behnam 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It could potentially be much more than that.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? The Behnam 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Using my magical powers, I foresee only turmoil and trouble coming out of an article that is nothing more than
  original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete heavily OR article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject and it looks well sourced. Possible merge? Perhaps with islamophobia. // Liftarn
• comment I'm torn because, as I see it, there are two main problems. On the one hand, this article is poorly written and appears to be mostly composed of OR, but on the other, I don't doubt that Anti-Arabism exists and I don't think Islamophobia is precisely the same thing. Maybe clean it up? I think we'd have to pretty much stub it and start over. <<-armon->> 09:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. To
  Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not all Arabs are Muslim. Most Muslims are not Arabs.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep AfDing an article w/ 73 references is of bad taste. Redirecting it to Islamophobia is nonsense as well (Muslims=Arabs nonsense) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 'count of references' is really not a very good method in determining whether or not the article violates WP:OR (which could include original interpretation of 'cited sources') or subsection WP:SYN (since that relies upon a synthesis of sources in the first place). What we have are a bunch of incidents that in some cases mention "anti-Arabism" being tied together to posit a "novel narrative." We can't be the ones to tie what could be isolated incidents together to present a phenomenon or concrete relationship between the events - that's the work of RS, not Wikipedians. The Behnam 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A Google search of Anti Arabism turns up over half a million results (596,000), with 2,620 results from Google Scholar. Their have been a number of popular and academic books written about Anti-Arabism. Academics who have covered this issue extensively include Edward Said, Jack Shaheen, Steven Salaita, and many others.--Kitrus 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS Sefringle^Talk 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment; while I strongly sympathise with the Behnam's statements against OR conducted by WP, and this article is a disgrace as it stands, the term itself has 200 hits on Gbooks etc. All of them use the term in the same manner, as shorthand for discrimination against Arab cultures. If necessary, stub this down - I certainly intend to remove some of the nonsense immediately - but I can't see that the term itself does not deserve an article. (Definitely more so than
  Anti-Australianism, in my opinion.) Hornplease 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your first arguement is

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The australia article can be nominated for deletion as well. As far as I am concerned, they both should be deleted.--Sefringle^Talk 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So what? Both

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are essays. -Huldra 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, than prehaps you can show me the policy where it states that google hits prove notability, or other stuff exists is a valid deletion arguuements for keeping?--Sefringle^Talk 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:googlehits implies that the quality of the results is not considered, merely the quantity. I clearly considered the quality, and the fact that they referred to a phenomenon with what appeared to be a stable definition. (Anyone interested in making a similar argument over at Pallywood? No?)

About otherstuffexists, my only point was that I can't imagine why this article is being singled out for deletion first. You're right, its an inappropriate argument for retention. I suppose I was just thinking out loud.

That being said, note I didn't state my conclusion. I continue to think that stubbing down the egregious OR leaves something that is clearly notable. Not a neologism, not inherently POV, etc. Hornplease 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we removed the egregious OR we'd still have something notable. We should fix the article by editing it. <<-armon->> 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep This is a notable subject, end of story. I think it is quite incredible that this article is put up for deletion; especially when on see, say, the huge
  New Anti-Semitism articles. The alternative (redir to islamophobia), is, as pointed out above not correct as not all Arabs are Muslim, nor are all Muslim Arabs. Having said that; it does need more editing...(like most other articles on WP) Regards, Huldra 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Perhaps you can provide sources to show us how it is notable? The redirect would be appropiate, as while not all arabs are muslim, the topics are very closely related (i.e. much anti-arabism is called islamophobic, and vice versa.)--Sefringle^Talk 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a very notable concept and also quite a significant one in the modern world. Many users are wrongly confusing Arabs with Muslims. However, most Muslims are not Arabs, and a lot of Arabs are not Muslims.Bless sins 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prehaps you can offer some citations as to how it is notable, and maybe you can respond to my comment directed at Huldra, which is my response to your second point.--Sefringle^Talk 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two topics are not closely related. The common stereotypes against Muslims is that of terrorism and suppression of sexual freedom. The common stereotypes against Arabs is excessive wealth, indulgence in excesses (including sexual intercourse).Bless sins 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable subject, well sourced. This is not islamophobia.Biophys 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FayssalF, Kitrus, Armon, Huldra and others. The article needs work, but the subject is notable and its use is well-established by scholarly sources. Merging with Islamophobia is not an option. They are two clearly distinct terms and phenomenon though it's true that those who share in them both often don't know that there's a difference. Tiamut 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FayssalF and Armon Bigglove^talk 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Comments in favor of deletion are predicated on the assumption that this is not an actual term, but the dozens of footnotes to reliable sources prove otherwise. Statement that the content should be moved to "Islamophobia," an entirely different subject, does not make sense. Badagnani 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If the lead cant cite any significant references for the term, its probably OR and a weak article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing references in the lead is not generally considered necessary. Is that the entirety of your objection? Hornplease 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think it is the 7th Anti-x article that I vote. Most of these Anti-x articles are notable enough to have article. The sad point is that most of them are filled with stupid OR nonsense. The cure is not deleting them, but correcting them (even by "stubbing" them). Although the former is easier :) --
  Pejman47 21:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, I really can't believe it's considered "not notible enough"!!? The article itself may be bad but the term is used, if you really insist it can be changed to Anti-Arab discrimination although it weighs it down. Moreover, Anti-Arabism is much older than what is listed. I think the problem with the article is that everyone knows a tiney bit of info and put it up, no one really looked up a proper source and added the information. The article needs a lot of work but the subject is defintly notible - it's rediculus to claim otherwise. --Maha Odeh 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    Anti-Semitism is notable, because Jews have suffered genocides and been persecuted. Though they are far from the only ethnic group who have suffered persecution, I can't recall any instance where Arabs have suffered genocides and heavy persecution simply because they are Arabs. This article is taking a few incidents, and exaggerating and blowing it out of proportions. Every ethnic group has faced some kind of racism; Arabs are not alone in this. We can't create an article for every ethnic that has been called this and that every once in a while. The only reason some people dislike Arabs, is because of Islam. Really, that's it. So the notable incidents in this article should be moved to Islamophobia. — EliasAlucard|Talk
    14:51 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is reliable. --alidoostzadeh 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.