Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslims fear Backlash

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 Delete and protect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:31Z

Muslims fear Backlash[edit]

This unattributed neologism has been created and speedy deleted several times. It fits no WP:CSD, though, so let's do this the proper way through AfD. Sandstein 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism is not notable in and of itself. The fear of backlash is notable, but the term for the fear of backlash is not notable. --N Shar 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unsourced derogatory articles should be deleted on sight, and this counts. There isn't even an assertion of sourcing, and it implies that Muslims do in fact have a propensity to fear backlash. -Amarkov moo! 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete, since this phase has no sources. Being used doesn't count. -Amarkov moo! 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per nomination. Artaxiad 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article hasn't even been created yet and it is being trounced upon and targeted for termination. I think , given it recieves 738 google hits and is a term used by multiple sources on talk radio, TV and the blogosphere, it should be given the chance to at least people comment in the discussion page. Having articles deleted without a single word in the discussion page is a gross violation of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Prester John 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per nom.--Jersey Devil 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably not speedy, since as Sandstein's pointed out there's not really a category for it). Essentially, this is a misunderstanding of journalistic English, as any group at risk for doing/saying/thinking a certain thing can be said to "fear [a] backlash" in news headlines. See, for example, this Google search, where Bosnians, Tamils, (American) Democrats, Muslims (from the US and Australia), British troops, Saudi Shiites [sic] (a special kind of Muslim, I'll grant), "immigrants" (of no particular type), economists, Irish rugby players (of all people!) and Asian-Americans are all "fearing [a] backlash" for various things that members of their communities have done or said. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Common phrases in newspaper headlines do not constitute the basis for an article name on Wikipedia. If that were the case, we'd have articles called "Gas prices rise" and "Hot weather expected." CovenantD 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete and salt. This neologism is pure original research based on a common phrase used by newspaper headline writers. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Anti-Islamic nonsense Al-Bargit 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This is not so much an actual term as a news story title shorthand. --Black Falcon 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stock phrase with no more significance than muddy dog or record profits.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, novel synthesis. Hesperian 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to keep.--Sefringle 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopaedic content, POV. —xyzzy_n 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia.Proabivouac 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:BigHaz and User:CovenantD. This isn't even a neologism -- it's sentence fragment (and incorrectly punctuated at that). We have sections in Persecution_of_Muslims#Persecution_of_Muslims_in_the_United_States and Islamophobia among other places that fear among Muslims about backlash related to Islamic extremism can be addressed. ~CS 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclusionists fear Backlash. Essentially this is an article that could be titled Xs fear Backlash with X equalling any group that due to some event fears a backlash. Why have an article about Muslims in particular? (→Netscott) 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR, Neologism, and not a legitimate topic to make an article. Cool Hand Luke 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Aminz 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-salt per everyone above --Descendall 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unattributed neologism. Beit Or 09:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Webkami 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Unsourced neologism. Dragomiloff 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beit Or--Sa.vakilian 14:22, 28 February 2007 (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.