Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonistan (term)

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]

Perhaps *you* should read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, starting with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and also get some experience of the AfD process before you tell people what the "rules" are and try to sound condescending.

I invite the closing admin to disregard this "keep" as notability is not the issue here. Equendil Talk 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to establish notability is the main ground for deletions in AfDs. If you think there is another ground for deletion that applies to this article, you have not stated it. Why keep it a secret? If there is something in AfD guidelines, that you think is grounds for deletion, please point it out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't read what other people write do you ? Equendil Talk 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have an answer to my question. As of now there is no grounds for deletion that you have stated. In my understanding if the subject to WP:notable Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]