Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamicization

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, with some users recommending a move to [[Islamization. -- Joolz 00:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Notable neologism, which if it belonged anywhere would be wikitionary. Irishpunktom\^talk 11:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Conform what Irishpunktom said. --SoothingR 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a neologism so much as a bunch of recognizable lexemes stuck together to make a word that's not really a word, but comprehensible to many, many people. But Delete it anyway. Nateji77 13:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the field where I have been working, the history of Sudan, Islamicization is a much discussed and important notion. - SimonP 13:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep as the transitive Islamicization, or move to the intransitive Islamitization? Nateji77 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned on Darkfred's talk page that there are a number of parallel forms e.g. "Anglicisation", "Commercialisation", "Industrialisation" etc. (Or spelt with a "z" if you're that way inclined in the first case. --MacRusgail 13:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is my new 'Made up word of the day'. This word will obviously never be used in any real sense; It is impossible to pronounce. Plus it doesn't really do anything new, its a stub. 'When' an actual article is written consider placing it at Spread of Islam or in the already existing History of Islam. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonP. Move to Islamization. This is a real word. This stub must be expanded so that it is something more than a dic-def, though. Perhaps something could be incorporated from the History of Sudan? Ground Zero | t 15:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — 18,000+ google hits. (Compared to 200,000+ for Christianization, &c.) — RJH 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dicdef. Who cares how many Google hits it has? Ground Zero, do you really think "being a real word" is the only necessary criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Why is it that every damn dicdef gets so many "keep & expand" votes? Sometimes there's nothing to expand.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wahoo, please reconsider you tone. It is unnecessary. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Can't we all just get along? If you re-read what I werote, you will see that I do not "think "being a real word" is the only necessary criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia". I think that this is a real word about a concept that deserves an encyclopedia entry. This stub is the beginning of that entry. Ground Zero | t 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares? I do. Google count is one measure of notability. If this article is not simply a dicdef, then clearly it should remain. My vote stands, and you need to work on ameliorating your anti-social attitude. :-P — RJH 15:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dicdef. "It could be expanded" is not an argument against deletion, though "It has been expanded" is. If someone really feels like writing a proper article after this dicdef has been deleted, nothing's stopping them. As far as Google hits go, the 'word' abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz gets 500,000 hits, twice as many as Christianization. But is it a word? Nooooo. -- Last Malthusian 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz is a short article on wikipedia, so I'm not sure your example stands up. --Quasipalm 17:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand used in press, several different issues here. A redirect "Islamicisation" should also be in there. Ref. also "Umma" --MacRusgail 16:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real process. Kappa 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a stub waiting for more content, and I think that's it's reasonable to assume that more content could develop, given time. --Quasipalm 17:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't know what the case is in America, but this concept has all kinds of ramifications (beyond a simple dicdef) in Europe. I've added some content, but it really needs an expert's contribution.Vizjim 17:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll say keep. LexisNexis gives it over 300 uses in periodicals (and another 230some uses as spelled "Islamicisation.). Important concept, but if kept must have a close watch for POV. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... now I'm torn. "Islamization" seems like a more commonly used word, but also "Islamification" shows up as valid usage. I don't really care where this ends up, but create redirects from the rest. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Islamization (see here, for instance) and expand. We already have a quite lengthy, though untidy article on the islamization of knowledge. This page can potentially have information on the historic islamization of Sudan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, to name a few, and on more recent topics, such as the islamization of terrorism, women's human rights, and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40504 Europe]. The lack of these topics on Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. Karol 22:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty can be said on this subject in various contexts --Doc (?) 00:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Islamization. TheMadBaron 00:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Islamization per Karol. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I would be happy to see all similar words for the same concept merged together with redirects. --Apyule 06:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Islamization. Notable process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Islamicization Is the common european term for a variety of phenomena. I wish WP would work out a satisfactory way of reconciling the different usage that exists in the u.s. and europe, often the assumptions of similarity made by u.s. contributors can have the result of making whole entries unreliable to european users. In this case someone looking for info on a legitimate word will not find it if the page is deleted, even though the content may exist under Islamization. Seems we really are divided by a common language - I would like to see an alternative to disambiguation for cases such as this (a word which in itself sounds strange to european ears where 'clarification' has served as a good verb to counter 'ambiguity' for many years) - any ideas on how to go about suggesting such a process? 80.0.168.8 12:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC) not logged in usual username is ttifrap[reply]

Wouldn't a redirect do the trick? Karol 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Islamicization and Islamization are not necessarily the same thing. Islamization is a philosophical process - so, for instance, you can Islamize the study of physics. Islamicization is more geopolitical in meaning (e.g. the "creeping Islamicization of the inner cities" was a phrase I read recently in The Daily Telegraph). Vizjim 14:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose islamization covers both meanings, with islamicization being an alternate spelling (very unfriendly to the tongue). Please refer to the links I gave in my vote to see both meanings in various contexts. Karol 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And Google says: Islamization (215,000) plus Islamisation (153,000) = 368,000. Islamicization (18,700) plus Islamicisation (629) = 19,329. I think that the geopolitical use of the word is probably far more likely in English-language media than the philosophical process, but "Islamiz/sation" is the word that is being used, not "Islamiciz/sation". Ground Zero | t 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Karol 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point (though it reflects American dominance of the Internet).Vizjim 10:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dicdef neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dicdef or not is for the group's votes to decide. However, Islamicisation is not a neologism. Use stretches back at least 20 years (to describe Zia-ul-Haq's Islamicisation process in Pakistan).Vizjim 10:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time for a reality check; Wikipedia does not determine what constitutes a dicdef. We can sure vote to keep them and expand them, pretending that they're encyclopedic articles, but that's just pretending. Try to remember that a Wikipedia decisions are only relevant to Wikipedia, not the real world. And what exactly is it about this article that can't be described in any other article? And lets face it, this article is going to be used to complain about the influence of Islam in non-Islamic culture; the perfect POV-magnet.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Islamicization" may be a neologism, but it means the same thing as "Islamization", which certainly isn't. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the verb "Islamize" was first used ca. 1846. I think after almost 160 years this is no longer a neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it's not a neologism. It's just a plain dicdef.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 19 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.