Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment (3rd nomination)

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. No "keep" opinions, very poor article, WP:OR problems, etc.  Sandstein  20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistani sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been nominated before but in my opinion the narrators have failed to present the proper reasons. The article is completely filled with information about the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent during the 1200s. Pakistan was not even created until 1947. The other information are personal opinions, which is aganist Wikipedia:NOR and the article also lacks WP:N

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 are falsely cited in the article. They have no relation to the sentences in which they have been cited with. Leaving only 2 source, one of which is a lengthy quote meant to take up space. None of the sources also use the term "anti-Pakistan sentiment" The rest of the article is filled with Indian resentment of Pakistan which is also against WP:COAT.

Might I also mention that the term "Indophobia" can also apply to Pakistan since "Indophobia refers to hostility towards Indians and Indian culture and prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Moved here from second nom; it works now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neutral I appreciate the nom's effort to distinguish this from previous deletion debates, which is rare, appreciated and entirely appropriate. Nonetheless, there does seem to be significant scope to expand this article and consequently it is, in my view, worth keeping. There is no doubt that there is resentment in India against Pakistan (also, arguably, in other countries including the West), for some legitimate reasons but also arguably for some less legitimate reasons. Regardless, while I note the reference to WP:COAT I don't think that this concern is sufficient to justify deleting the article which in this instance which can be improved per WP:BOLD. There are a range of cross-cultural tensions on the sub-continent that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage, although I agree that this particular example is inadequately treated by the current text of this article. Debate 木 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What cross-cultural tensions? The only tensions mentioned here are between Pakistan and India which are not cultural but political. They should not even be in this article but instead in Indo-Pakistani relations.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am changing my view to neutral on this one. I've spent a fair bit of time looking over English language sources and I'm finding surprisingly little reliable, secondary or tertiary material. The lack of independent analysis is particularly surprising to me since, as just one example, the racially abusive term 'packi', is commonly used by the more racist elements in Great Britain. I note, however, that in my view there has been little in the way of argument in this AFD to date that would justify outright deletion in preference to simple, bold editing. Debate 木 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. The concept of anti-Pakistani sentiment is notable, but this article does not deal with the topic substantively. The quote used most prominently in the article is a negative characterization of Hindustan (not Pakistan) which was written by a Muslim emperor almost 500 years ago, and over 400 years before Pakistan was created, and so its relevance is unclear. If the article got a complete rewrite, it might be worthy of being kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources don't support the point of the article, and no effort has been made to improve the article since the AfD began. The central quote is still there and still makes no sense in this particular context. It would be like using a quote from a Canadian deriding France as an illustration of Anglophobia. This deletion should be without prejudice to creation of a better article, but unless we try to delete this one, progress toward a better article is unlikely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the five online sources are not relevant to the topic of the article, the offline one is supporting the irrelevant quote from centuries earlier. While an article might be possible on this topic; the current article and history offer little hope that one will be written and a blank slate would be better than this. GRBerry 20:07, 19 June 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.