Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophile

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. Consensus to not have an article on this. Perhaps also redirect, but no clear consensus as to where, so that's an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afrophile

Afrophile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced "-phile" —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, would be a dicdef at best. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophilia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the term does exist in many reliable sources (quick Google Books search verifies that); however, i think it would most suitably belong as a dicde--for now at least.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the term is similar to and more widely quoted than other current Wikipedia words such as; Kartvelophile and Suecophile. It clearly has a legitimate place in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.80.126 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - (1) Is there really no other page that covers this? The appreciation, fascination, appropriation, and exploitation of African arts and culture has been happening in a sense that could be described by this term since the Age of Discovery. Explorers would go to Africa just to purchase or plunder its culture to return to rich Europeans (and, later, Americans). There's Exploration of Africa and Colonisation of Africa, and there's Culture of Africa and African art, but I'm seeing surprisingly little about this. Anyone else have ideas? (2) @Fotoriety: That a word is used just means it's appropriate for a dictionary (like Wiktionary). We need sources that talk about the subject that the term refers to. Have you seen any of those? I'm actively looking right now. I don't have much time, but I'm surprised I haven't found more already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Ah. Found it. Negrophilia. Close enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments It could be argued that contemporaries would be offended by the term "Negrophile" for obvious reasons. Afrophilia captures a contemporary world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:18e1:e8ab:0:d48b:9eae:cec6:6f98 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2015‎

• Negrophilia was a specific name used in France in the early 20th century, so we certainly wouldn't want to rename it. The article doesn't take it much beyond that, but the underlying phenomenon is the same. Crucially, there are sources that talk about negrophilia, and we are, as yet, without significant coverage of afrophilia. An article on the broader subject would be ideal, but for our purposes we're just looking at whether afrophile/afrophilia are notable, and with negrophilia already existing with a good amount of overlap, we'd need to see some good sources to justify keeping this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: It's hard to see that we should have both Afrophile and Aphrophilia, so one should surely redirect to the other. I'm less than persuaded that Negrophilia is exactly the right target, given its overtones: at best the term is obsolete. At the moment, Aphrophilia is rapidly being given reliable sources. Perhaps both the other articles should redirect to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - not sure what the appropriate redirect is, but this is nothing more than a dicdef and some WP:SYNTH crap (Bill Clinton, Bono?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not acceptable as an article, this could be redirected either to Negrophilia or to African studies. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a non-notable neologism, though it seems conceivable that the concept itself could be notable. I found a few uses of the word on Google News, but I don't see the significant coverage that Wikipedia requires. It's entirely possible this could be redirected to Negrophilia, but that seems like a distinct Paris fad. The other suggestion, African studies, is a decent choice, but it's an academic subject, not a pop cultural appreciation. I suggest deletion and leaving it to editor discretion as to whether a redirect is appropriate. If someone can show that the concept is notable, under a name that isn't a non-notable neologism, we could have an article on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: the many arguments for deletion all apply for current longstanding Wikipedia words such as; Japanophile, sinophile and europhile. Yet they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.232.171 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a link for that! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no valid points for deletion or redirection. While the word exists in historical and contemporary lexicon and many valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.86.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — 24.114.86.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.