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 - Philippe | Talk 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The whole article is a hodge podge of different sources and ideas - e.g. Martial races theory, 1971 Bangladesh atrocities - which have been conflated with the term "Indophobia". This article does note that the term was coined by "American Indologist Thomas Trautmann to describe negative attitudes expressed by some British Indologists against Indian history, society, religions and culture", so really should only be a Wiktionary entry. It was just a term used in scholarly discourse, that can also apply to prejudice against people of the Indian subcontinent - that's about it. All of the stuff in this article belongs elsewhere - the article as it stands is just a pov mêlée of sources.
Pahari Sahib 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article being in a bad state is not a reason for its deletion. The term is discussed in several books and papers; it deserves an encyclopedic entry, just like Anglophobia. Or it could be moved to an article titled Anti-India sentiment, like the other articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment. utcursch | talk 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about reducing this article to simply a description of the term? The rest of the information, about Pakistan and Bangladesh, seems like it violates WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN) in most cases, unless the sources actually characterize the sentiment in both Pakistan and Bangladesh as "Indophobic." The issue with these "-phobic" pages is that "Islamophobic" is the only one that has a sizable body of scholarly literature on it. Moreover, it appears as though this page was created with the intent to "offset" the Islamophobia page, as we are already aware of the tensions between South Asian countries. Sentences like this: "In academic discourse, racial prejudices directed against these people from their host countries fall under the rubric of Indophobia." need to simply be weeded out, since they then allow the editors to have too much liberty in adding whatever content they wish, even if it hasn't be characterized as Indophobic by the actual sources. The article needs clean up, but not necessarily deletion. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a quick search I found two reliable sources discussing the term: a Times of India article at [1] and a Daily Times (Pakistan) article at [2]. These two sources are sufficient to establish notability alone. Notability aside, the article, as written, has an excess of information of no direct relevance. This should be reduced and/or removed from the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2008 (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.