Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamophobia (3rd 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 Speedy Keep this appears to be a bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia (3rd nomination)

This page is not encyclopedic and contains a multitude of personal opinions rather than notable facts BookwormUK 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:I just fixed this nomination. See the first discussion. Luna Santin 11:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Previous consensus (June 2005) was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic itself is undeniably notable; see also:
  Anti-Semitism, Anti-Catholicism, Homophobia, Supremacism, and so many other pages in Category:Discrimination. NPOV and OR don't strike me as valid causes for deletion, in this case; for a topic so obviously notable, it seems preferable to rewrite, discuss, and fix whatever problems we might find. As Wikipedians, we may not enjoy hatred, racism, or prejudice, but if our goal is present a neutral view, it doesn't seem appropriate to try and "erase" the existence of evil and bad things in the world. Readers deserve a fair, neutral article on Islamophobia and related topics. Luna Santin 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable... This article contains too much original research and is a free for all. If Islamophobia exists then so too should Hinduophobia, Jainophobia, Sikhophobia, etc. Racism is the catch all for this type of discussion. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs
  ) .

If you want an article on Hinduophobia, I respectfully suggest you find some

sources and get writing. :) Every article on here was submitted by somebody; why not make some contributions, yourself, if you feel these other subject matters deserve coverage? Luna Santin 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Concensus to keep was absolutely clear on first nomination. Clearly a notable topic - if references are needed then they should be added. Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This deals with an important subject and as such should be kept. Deleting the article would not reduce the term's importance to modern times and questions of identity amid a possible
  NPOV, however. Jpeob 11:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Unencylcopedic? Obviously
  reliable sources are cited regarding the subject matter found in this article. (→Netscott) 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In a rather twisted and "original research" way (see "Reasons for Islamophobia" section added by User:BookwormUK) this nominator herself supports the concept of "Islamophobia". (→Netscott) 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to be a bad faith nomination by an editor trying to push a
  WP:POV per Netscott. The previous strong consensus to keep still stands. By all means let's improve the article but there are no valid grounds for deletion. Gwernol 14:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- If it is not encyclopaedic than that is purely OR from the part of the nominator. If it contains "contains a multitude of personal opinions" than it can be fixed by an "infamous tag". We don't delete articles on those basis. An article containing 95 referenced sources and notes CANNOT be lacking NOTABLE FACTS. -- Szvest 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. I am not one to quickly make accusations of bad faith -- far from it -- but this appears to me to be incontrovertibly so. This edit, in which the nominator inserted previously non-existing text ("Islam is hated because its followers believe that they have the God given right to force their beliefs down other people's throats.") as part of an otherwise proper revision is strong evidence for the bad-faith nomination. Furthermore, the article is extensively sourced -- one of the most extensively sourced articles I've ever seen. That completely puts paid to the notion that the article is nothing but original research and unencyclopedic. This is, to me, a slam-dunk Speedy Keep. Powers ^T 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Islamophobia, is an important topic. Perhaps you could change the article instead of trying to delete it? --PEAR 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The nominator has now been blocked for
  POV pushing. It is clear this is a bad faith nomination and should be closed. Gwernol 16:00, 13 August 2006 (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.