Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiaholic

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, despite the confusing nature of this AFD, there is consensus to delete. --Coredesat 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiaholic

Indiaholic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

At best, this is a dicdef and should be sent to Witionary. At worst, it's a neologism and shouldn't be included anywhere. I tend to lean toward the latter, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Kafziel ^Talk 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also adding Indophobia to this AfD per Dev920's suggestion. Once deleted, that can be turned into a redirect to -phob- along with the tons of other made-up phobias. Kafziel ^Talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Second nomination withdrawn to avoid a trainwreck. Can be nominated separately if anyone so wishes. Kafziel ^Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete very neologistic. Suggest you AfD Indophobia as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Mytildebang 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*Extremely strong keep for indophobia (delete Indiaholic, non notable term). Not a neologism. Please see the following academic sources for the word: #http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 #http://www.nd.edu/~milind/posts/tr_chap4 by scholar Trautmann (old scholar, so not a neologism) #See Idi Amin for an example of an indophobe #Why is there an article on Sinophobia? #More refs for indophobia: #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520066510&id=Fu5h2T7dZFEC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&ots=lNVuqLlkux&dq=Indophobia&sig=LtUrLzQaI9fFyDLEd2OC5epXsK8 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00623933&id=MpOJ6Rt9q1IC&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00489344&id=-cQrsUX03-0C&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00897826&id=R4AeAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03980670&id=CgMEAAAAMAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586840614&id=IzRr1_iPKVcC&pg=RA6-PA237&lpg=RA6-PA237&dq=Indophobia&sig=e_TO6kSNydRKRdSSKgwoiNE1nuU #http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN817027088X&id=BRMNAAAAIAAJ&q=Indophobia&dq=Indophobia&pgis=1 #Idi amin & indophobia: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0047-1607(197224)2%3A4%3C12%3AGAATIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 #http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/ReligiousRadicalism/PagesfromReligiousRadicalismandSecurityinSouthAsiach3.pdf #http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Saikia/SaikiaOP.pdf These are all academic refs. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indophobia debate removed so changing my vote to delete indoholic article. It is a non notable term. Indophiles are already mentioned in Indomania.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pyrophobia has six times more hits at Google books than Indophobia does, but it's still a redirect to -phob-. Contrary to popular belief, wide use of a word does not mean it's not a neologism. We don't need an article on every "phobia" people can come up with. Still, I know the India cabal is one of the strongest on Wikipedia and tons of people will therefore show up to "vote" to keep this without reason (as Bondego did below). So I'm removing Indophobia, as it was not part of the original nomination and I don't want to sink the Indiaholic nomination by association. Kafziel ^Talk 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

India cabal? Please do tell us about unicorns, East Dakota, and the Canadian Army while you're at it.Bakaman 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See my third rule and I'll tell you all about it. But judging from your userboxes, you have nothing whatsoever to do with India so you are clearly neutral and therefore an exception. Humble apologies. Kafziel ^Talk 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I hope the words of Babur show the despise associated with India and its people. More will be added soon.nids(♂) 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)the afd for indophobic has been withdrawn. nids(♂) 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually i voted to keep indophobic. Not indoholic, which can be speedily deleted for being an non-notable term.nids(♂) 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Indophobia and Indiaholic. --Bondego 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. Kafziel ^Talk 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And this wasn't an AFD. I got confused because two distinct articles were put up in the same AFD. I change to delete for the Indiaholic article.--Bondego 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, "this wasn't an AFD"? What else would it be? AFDs can have more than one article per nomination. Indophobia was added because another editor suggested it, and it's by the same author. Even now, the fact remains that you need to say why you feel one way or the other. Kafziel ^Talk 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - indophobia seems to be a term that's thrown around frequently. Indophobia also has connotations pertaining to International Relations. Its can hardly be compared to pyrophobia, which is merely a person's irrational fear of fire. Indophobia is more along the lines of Islamophobia.Bakaman 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which, as the intoductory sentence states, is also a neologism. But in any case, Indophobia is no longer up for deletion. Please see the rest of the discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Change to Delete - Indiaholic is a rarely used neologism.Bakaman 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per nomination. Is a stupid word, never heard of it before Dictionary.com doesn't even recognize it as a word, article has no content, and overall is just unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete --D-Boy 04:46, 11 January 2007 (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.