Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduphobia in academia


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hinduphobia in academia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE created in response to the criticism inserted at Love Jihad. If that's not the case, it is at least a WP:POVFORK of Hinduphobia (or its current redirect). Proper WP:CFORK may be possible. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, leaning delete. I found the following sources when thinking about whether to nominate this myself (also posted on the article's talk page). The current sources (as noted by Vanamonde93 on the article's talk page) are suspect, and in any event should probably be treated as primary.
 * Not a very extensive discussion, although I can't see the whole book.
 * Jeffrey Long's encyclopedia entry on the idea casts doubt on whether this is even a coherent concept.
 * Could be useful.
 * It's clear in any event that this would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with policies including WP:NPOV. I am not convinced about notability either. Arguable WP:TNT case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This article was originally created as a Portal, before any edits on Love Jihad page were made. The portal page was deleted due to lack of sufficient related topics, and that is why the contents were reposted as an article. This is not an 'attack page' in any context and the assertion is baseless.

The article requires more editing, however, the unreliability of sources is a dubious contention. Liberalvedantin (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin
 * Keep with rewrite. Balle010 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Any suggestions for how to do so would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This would require a total rewrite even if notability were established, which I highly doubt is the case &mdash; it seems to be pulling together disparate complaints from suspect sources in order to push a POV, rather than writing about a well-defined topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, article is one massive WP:NPOV violation and also functions as an attack page, having no article would be better than keeping this around even if it is notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant WP:CFORK, perhaps a WP:POVFORK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, per my comments on the talk page. A viable article could be written about the perceptions of Hinduism in academia, but this cherry-picked and OR-filled page isn't it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:POVFORK. What a mess. If, per, something were created, this would not be a useful scaffold. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2020 (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.