Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile


 * 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 There is no content worth merging. A redirect to whatever NPOV title we get for this as suggested by Uncle G is likely in order. But there's nothing worth salvaging here and Uncle G's article is not yet in mainspace. Uncle G's suggestion is also highly relevant and should be taken seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Asiaphile
AfDs for this article: 


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism not found in any major English dictionary. --Mfugue (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 10:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then those dictionaries are woefully out of date, since the words "Asiaphilia" and "Asiaphile" have been used in print since at least 2000 and 1997, respectively. I've found several sources that discuss the phenomenon of Asiaphilia, including ISBN 0971580804 (chapter 4) and ISBN 0816638241.  It's also known by the name Asian fetish, and according to the first of those sources which name is used varies from one's point of view.  We should treat this subject neutrally in a single article.  Asian fetish is currently protected from editing.  If it were not, we could attempt to use those sources and merge the twain. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained at Talk:Asian fetish, my view is that we merge both this and Asian fetish, just like they were merged as a result of the previous AFD discussion, into a single article, but that, as was discussed in the last AFD discussion but not implemented, we pick a name for the subject that is not inherently non-neutral, as both of the two names are. I've provided a start to this at User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men.  Since there's no content here worth keeping, and since the scope of an article by this title would be inherently non-neutral, this should simply redirect to the merged article. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Used by Time magazine 2004, Village Voice 2006  ... so it's not just a non-notable neologism not found anywhere. That said, there isn't much to the current article but a dictionary definition. I'd say expand or merge as per Uncle G. Not putting that in bold, because then someone might ask me to expand it :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge The current article is more suitable for Wiktionary with no reliable source. It's nothing more than a collection of see also links. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will put in a reliable source eventually when I find the time, I've already listed a wealth of sources below. Tkguy (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous AfD discussion overwhelmingly leans towards delete. In fact, the article does not even seem like it has been closed properly. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge* with Asian fetish (unprotect it!) --Lukobe (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: The article will become unprotected on January 14th. I am a bit cautious about merging the two terms, because being a Japanophile or a Sinophile is not the same as having "a thing" for Chinese or Japanese women. That also raises interesting questions about the definition of Asian fetish. I think this discussion should be closed soon, because the last one back in '04 overwhelmingly points towards delete. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Who mentioned Japanophilia and Sinophilia? I and Lukobe mentioned this article and Asian fetish. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article in question is about Asiaphile. It was just my opinion. I guess Asiaphilia and Japanophilia were related to each other but I guess not. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this word is used in 30 books according to [google book search] and 25 books according to [amazon.com]. The term Orientophile, used in 16 books according to [google book search for Orientophile], Asianophile, used in 2 books according to [google book search on Asianophile], and Asianphile, used in 1 book according to [google book search on Asianphile] are sometimes used interchangeably as well. Asian fetish is also not found in most dictionaries yet the article survived 4 AfD attempts (Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian fetish). I believe the arguments for keeping Asian fetish should also apply for keeping Asiaphile. I think it would be more appropriate to have Asiaphilia redirect to Asian fetish as it's synonymous with that term. Asiaphile should just stay where it is, since it's a stand alone term describing a person with an Asian fetish or Asiaphilia. Tkguy (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete At best it deserves an entry in Wiktionary. At worst, it's the NPOV language of activists.165.123.139.232 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, indeed, a name with an inherent slant on the subject. So, too, is Asian fetish.  See above for the solution to both.  Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Asian fetish did survive AfD 4 times, one of them started by me. However, Asiaphile did not. The previous discussion points towards delete, and should have been either deleted or merged. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not a dictionary.--Crossmr (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Asian fetish, the biased title of which allows it to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK essay. - Headwes (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete After reviewing WP:NEO I'd like to change my stance to delete. Beyond the mere dictionary entry that it is now, it seems this article has little potential besides turning into another POV essay like Asian fetish. - Headwes (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because this is a name for something that comprises a slant on the subject that is inherent in the very name itself. See above for the solution to that. Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to neutral article name per recommendation by Uncle G. While there is no doubt that the word exists and can be demonstrated to having been used in contemporary media, there is no way to create a NPOV article from this page name.  JERRY talk contribs 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.