Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakophilia


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pakophilia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure WP:OR Definition sourced to a dictionary anyone can edit. OED has no mention of this, only 188 results on Google and most seem to be to the wiki dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - obviously a neologism, though a nice idea! Unfortunately I can't see any evidence of common usage other than WP mirror sites. Sionk (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The title might be neologism but the content is not, better to rename to an appropriate title. See my comment below. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete neologism, no serious sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Pro-Pakistan sentiment which is the actual scope of the article and is already covered in there. This topic is as notable Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Article is sourced for that and many more can be found. . -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, yet another article for you to add unsourced OR to. How many of those sources actually discuss Pro-Pakistan sentiment in detail BTW? Or are they perhaps just passing mentions? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Review them yourself. The topic has abundant references. And don't comment on me again. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting a move to another article title, it is you who needs to prove it is discussed in depth in reliable secondary sources. I would recommend you do so and not ask others to do your research. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one asked you to do any research. But then don't object on the citations without even reviewing them. I've provided enough sources which justify the move. The article content currently covers the same. The article title might be a neologism but not the content. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Pro-Pakistan sentiment doesn't exist yet. So Pakophilia can't be moved to it. You would simply be changing the name of the Pakophilia article. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing the name is called a move. (I didn't say merge). Anyway, you get my point. That title will not imply WP:NEO and has sources for it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, the sooner the better Unsourced. None of the sources use the term; it's been around a while and crept into mirror sites and throughout the web. This is the worst kind of article, creating something that doesn't exist. Of course pro-Pakistani sentiment exists. Anyone who has ever eaten Pakistani food has this sentiment, at the very least--and the textiles, and the hospitality, and the poetry! If an article based on reliable sources (not these blogs and likes by famous people in this article) should be written on pro-Pakistani sentiment, then let it be written under an appropriate title. But don't take a made-up word, in an unsourced article, and perpetuate the indignity of it all by merging the crap into the history of a real article. This needs deleted, its entire history. The sooner the better. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually the nominator seems to be right, the title of this article itself seems to be a neologism that doesn't have much coverage in WP:RS (as a term, I mean). However, the concept of Pro-Pakistan sentiment certainly would have enough coverage in mainstream sources to warrant an article. I'm neutral on this. This article can be moved to Pro-Pakistan sentiment or be deleted and a fresh article can be started on Pro-Pakistan sentiment, which as Pseudofusulina suggests, could talk about food, poetry, textiles and even Pakistani music (for example people like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan who have had a profound influence on eastern music throughout the world. So I don't really mind - in both cases, a new article called "Pro-Pakistan sentiment" awaits to be created, either by this being moved to that title or a fresh start. Mar4d (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As if I don't miss too many Pakistani things already you mention Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan! I still urge removing the article to clean this made-up-in-en.wiki word out. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fails WP:GNG and is WP:NEO and WP:NOR. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG,WP:NEO and WP:OR--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since all above objections are on the title, it is better to move and redirect the article to the suggestion given above which awaits creation based on the same content rather than deleting article history which would be disruptive to the content progress. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wish to keep the history of a made up word on wikipedia? In what is probably one of the worst cases of WP:OR I have seen thus far, and you wish to keep it? I oppose such an idea. By all means create a new article, but this one needs to be purged from history. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read history deletion criteria. OR is not one of them. It needs simple removal/redirection. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange then the only advocate for a redirect or move is you? All others have said delete. Pseudofusulina says it far more eloquently than I Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any one objecting at the content. Removing history without a good reason is not good. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the fact that it is entirely made up and has no place in an encyclopedia would be a good reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore TopGun DS. Consensus here is crystal clear.  This is not the first time TG has shown disrespect for consensus and persisted in POV pushing.  TopGun when people say delete they mean the article needs to be deleted not the title.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep your comments to the content discussion. Commenting on users is disruptive, don't comment on me again. And consensus is achieved by discussion, you can certainly not stop me from discussing the content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Commont I will nominate the redirect for deletion as a neologism, if it is created. Redirects from made-up words also don't belong on en.wiki.Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is actually about the article history that will get lost (and original research would not be the history deletion criteria) if the decision is to delete. This will prevent finding sources for that content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, provided an appropriate target can be found. Redirects are cheap, and standard constructs such as this are reasonably likely to be useful. Also it provides a link for external sites that currently link to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC).


 * No, they don't. And it's not about cost. Redirects from misspellings, redirects from common names, but, no, don't make up words and make them redirects. There's no policy for it. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the focus on the AfD instead of a non existant RfD. While the title may not be notable, the content is... this is a simple rename case. If the idea is history deletion, there's no policy saying that OR should be completely deleted from history as well - which is actually disruptive as it can later be sourced. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:45, 14 February 2012 (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.