Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianophobia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Christianophobia

Neologism and highly POV article. Any legitimate material here should be folded into Persecution of Christians. Firebug 04:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteI agree, they are perfectly synomynous. kralahome 5:00 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (/redirect?). "[T]heir 'neo-pagan' Christophobia could not have existed without Christianity and this is what the Vatican document overlooks...", from RS Wistrich (University of Jerusalem) "The Vatican and the Shoa", Modern Judaism, Volume 21, Number 2, May 2001, pp. 83-107. And, "The resolution also included ‘Christianophobia’ as..." from: Nazila Ghanea (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London) and Ladan Rahmani (University of Sydney) "A review of the 60th session of the commission on human rights," The International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 9, Number 1 / March 2005, pp. 125-144. El_C 05:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvagable as NPOV, and then Delete, NO redirect. Master Thief Garrett 05:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep. Term is verifiable. I found the "Causes of Christianophobia" section implausible, and the "Demographic suicide" thesis frankly sounds barking mad, but this is dealt with in an encyclopedic manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Both Master Thief Garrett and Tony Sidaway seems to be implying that scholarly journals would employ neologisms in published works, but isn't the very fact they are published in those quarters negates it from being considered that? El_C 06:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, neologism. Megan1967 06:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I appear to be invisible, I'll take my trollings elsewhere! :D El_C 06:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect per El C. This "neologism" critierion seems to imply WP has to wait five years before it covers a new concept. Kappa 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with tiny number of sections possibling moved to the Persecution of Christians page. The 'causes of' might be worth keeping in some form, as as a 'modern persecution of christians' section of the POC page - the rest is total unsavable biosed BUNK INMO. - Pacula 09:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Yes, we should wait for neologisms. Why? Verification. It's easy to get Google hits overnight with a term that few people are using. However, the best thing is to see usage. Usage has to be over time to be real. Further, dictdefs are out. Further, this is inherently POV. Further, encyclopedias, by their nature, are inherently conservative. They are not archives, but discussions. Geogre 12:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. the term has been used by the pope, used and described in several published books on the topic, and discussions on the topic have been had at the UN and EU. The General Assembly of the UN uses it in concert with Islamophobia and Antisemitism, which both have their own articles here on wikipedia. Further, the proponent of this vfd did not discuss his or her concerns on the talkpage before vfding, violating vfd procedure. Ungtss 14:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Stancel 15:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

it's a neologism currently being used by dozens of academics, the UN human rights counsel, and the vatican. beyond that, where does vfd policy recommend the deletion of neologisms? Ungtss 15:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Or merge with a redirect with a suitable existing entry. Doesn't mean you have to read it. Deletions are for nonsense. --Wetman 00:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But just barely. It's not a good article, and it's of borderline relevance, but it does seem to be documented and any problems can be fixed without deleting it. I say when in doubt keep.
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Ungtss above. Rangek 05:14, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
• Keep Article is now encyclopedicKlonimus 06:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Ungtss's reasoning —Tokek 19:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And see where it goes. It's definitely a valid concept, even if the article has problems. Pollinator 01:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Christianophobia deserves an entry as much as any other phobia. Citizen Premier 23:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dalf | Talk 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect NPOV, and redundant. pteranodon 18:09 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.