Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islomania

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. No prejudice against re-creating the article with sourced, non-OR content. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islomania

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neologism, synth, OR, the thinnest of threads thrown together to make a piecemeal trace of an article. Weeded it a bit, but there's really nothing there Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and substantially rewrite. It's an interesting concept, and one which seems to have some encyclopedic merit, but pretty much everything aside from the lead is pure original research. There's no need to ascribe the term to everyone who's ever lived on an island or written about an island or wanted to go to an island. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already remarked by DoctorKubla, almost everything after the lead section is OR/ESSAY, and should be deleted. After that, not much more than a dictionary definition remains of what is essentially a neologism that has not really caught on. If the final verdict is that the article is kept, here is an RS that apparently discusses the concept: John Vinocur (March 17, 1985). "So you want to get away?". The New York Times Magazine. (I haven't looked behind the paywall.) --Lambiam 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The topic might well be encyclopaedic but no-one seems to have written anything about it yet. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (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.