Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:30, 13 June 2005 editDeeptrivia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,409 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 02:16, 13 June 2005 edit undoBlackcats (talk | contribs)1,642 edits →Sockpuppet commentNext edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
== Sockpuppet comment == == Sockpuppet comment ==
I just checked all these IPs. They belong to different parts of the world, so are definitely different people. You can verify this if you want. I just checked all these IPs. They belong to different parts of the world, so are definitely different people. You can verify this if you want.

::They all popped up right around the same time, so it's probably just one or two people messing around with different servers and stuff. But it's a moot point, because even if what you say were true, then all that would mean is that somebody went on some anti-Muslim blog or newsgroup and asked all their internet-buddies to come and "vote" on this. ] 02:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


*'''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 ]. 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 Although it needs to be overhauled, I am surprised that people want it (and ] )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 *'''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 ]. 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 Although it needs to be overhauled, I am surprised that people want it (and ] )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

Revision as of 02:16, 13 June 2005

Islamophilia

Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Short POV piece, no chance it will ever be encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 06:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per 'squirrel. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - un-notable POV slander piece. Blackcats 09:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV attack page. JamesBurns 11:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep 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.
  • 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)
  • Delete, neologism. - Mustafaa 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page. Nothing here worth keeping. carmeld1 10:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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))
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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
  • Keep (sockpuppet) Either merge stub with related article or keep independent with expectation of expansion. Shouldn't be allowed to fall victim to PC reactionism. (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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Delete neologism. Axon 08:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - sockpuppet limit exceeded (apologies to RickK) --FCYTravis 08:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep (sockpuppet) - This is not islampobia - it is rational and it is free speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.149.56 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (User's only edit is to this VFD page. Axon 13:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • 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. User:Emiellaiendiay 10:36 a.m., 12 June 2005
  • Keep - 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.42.126 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - 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.

Sockpuppet comment

I just checked all these IPs. They belong to different parts of the world, so are definitely different people. You can verify this if you want.

They all popped up right around the same time, so it's probably just one or two people messing around with different servers and stuff. But it's a moot point, because even if what you say were true, then all that would mean is that somebody went on some anti-Muslim blog or newsgroup and asked all their internet-buddies to come and "vote" on this. Blackcats 02:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 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