Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonistan (term): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:10, 16 January 2009

Londonistan (term)

Nothing more than a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF) which I don't see evolving beyond that (Islam in London covers the subject of well, Islam in London). Wiktionary already has an entry (wiktionary:Londonistan) Equendil Talk 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a different article about Islamism in London ... Equendil Talk 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Equendil Talk 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I've heard this term before in conversation and it may have legs and may be much more than a neologism. Let's see what sources are out there on the name from other editors.Critical Chris (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Just because you have heard of the term doesn't mean it needs an article. Tavix (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with Helengrad and other disparaging but notably sourced sobriquets for places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources exist to allow creation of an article. No causes presented for deletion. WilyD 12:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, a reason was presented: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equendil Talk 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not a notable term (except among British neo-nazis) and is simply a WP:DICDEF - Ledenierhomme (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless someone changed the rules when I was not looking, the ground for an AfD is failure to establish notability. Since Londonistan meets notability standards, I seen no grounds for a nomination, much less deletion. There should be no difficulty expanding and improving the article, which does need work. (Perhaps Equendil should read the rules for AfDs before making future nominations.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: To remove any doubt about WP:notability, I have just added some further material to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:06, 16 January 2009 edit Kwork2 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,283 edits →Londonistan (term) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:10, 16 January 2009 edit undo Kwork2 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,283 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	*'''Keep'''. Unless someone changed the rules when I was not looking, the ground for an AfD is failure to establish notability. Since ''Londonistan'' meets notability standards, I seen no grounds for a nomination, much less deletion. There should be no difficulty expanding and improving the article, which does need work. (Perhaps Equendil should read the rules for AfDs before making future nominations.) [[User:Malcolm Schosha\|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)		*'''Keep'''. Unless someone changed the rules when I was not looking, the ground for an AfD is failure to establish notability. Since ''Londonistan'' meets notability standards, I seen no grounds for a nomination, much less deletion. There should be no difficulty expanding and improving the article, which does need work. (Perhaps Equendil should read the rules for AfDs before making future nominations.) [[User:Malcolm Schosha\|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

			:'''NB''': To remove any doubt about [[WP:notability]], I have just added some further material to the article. [[User:Malcolm Schosha\|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha\|talk]]) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)