Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonistan (term)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, I see no grounds for deletion that you have stated. The subject is WP:notable, and is not a content (or POV) fork, or a BLP violation. Just why do you want it gone? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Xe is quite right, in that you have not read the discussion. Xyr answer to your question was in the first link given in the nomination. Xe is also quite right about deletion policy. We do not delete articles for failure to "establish notability". That is not deletion policy. We delete articles if the subjects are not notable. (Articles don't have to "establish" anything. At AFD notability is determined.) But that is far from the only reason under deletion policy that we delete things. As Equendil told you, you really should familiarize yourself with what our deletion policy actually is. Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this is not a dictionary article. It appears to be an encyclopaedia article on the perceived tolerance for Islam within the U.K., with an exceedingly non-neutral, and badly chosen, title.
Of course, the reason for that is Malcolm Schosha's hanging coats on what the article was when it was nominated for deletion, which actually was a dictionary article, which in turn resulted from most of this article being copy-and-paste "moved" to Islamism in London, which yet further in turn is because Misheu suggested a rename on this article's talk page in May 2007, but copied-and-pasted the article instead of actually renaming it, leaving the raw dictionary article content behind, which in final turn is because editors at Talk:Londonistan (term), and indeed as far back as the 2005 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonistan thought this a very bad choice of title, that inherently causes a non-neutral article to arise.
So what we have now are two articles covering the same ground, one of which (this one) by an incredibly poor title, and the other of which would become a GFDL violation if we were to delete this article. I suggest that we go with Misheu's chosen name and (because of the GFDL requirement to preserve history) redirect there. Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange article. The relevance of the sections on 2001 and 2005 terrorist attacks escape me, and the context seems to be inherently POV. Islamism in London seems like a better choice of title, and particularly in view of the entangled history of both articles I think a redirect there is acceptable. If not redirected, it should be cleaned up and the references to islamism should be replaced by actual examples of the term being used. A history merge might be appropriate here. --TS 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an older version of the article restored by Malcolm Schosha, virtually none of it has anything to do with the term "Londonistan" specifically, as far as I can tell, some of it had been copied to Islamism in London and the article was trimmed down to essentially a dictionary definition. Equendil Talk 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most certainly a definition of a term - any remaining material can be put back where it belongs Islamism in London Viridae ^Talk 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is reasonably well written. Precedent already set with Helengrad (vote was to keep), and I must admit I never heard of Helengrad until I read this AfD. The term Londonistan has already been used in a published title by author Melanie Phillips. PS. The argument that because some people find the term offensive therefore it must be deleted, is not a valid reason for deletion, see WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesBurns (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here offered that "argument" ... Equendil Talk 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"is not a notable term (except among British neo-nazis)" JamesBurns (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent doesn't fly in wikipedia. Viridae ^Talk 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: "While pages like What Wikipedia is not play an important role in VfD decisions the body of precedent also plays a crucial role" see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive. JamesBurns (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote that, but I think it's an overstatement to describe the role of precedent as "crucial". The application of precedent is actively eschewed in most of Wikipedia; at most it's a template that we can choose to adopt or reject as the case seems to merit. --TS 02:38, 20 January 2009 (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.