Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia


 * 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. Whilst the !vote tally (which seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing) is more or less even, the strength of arguments is in favour of deletion. Many of the keep !votes are bare assertions of notability or veracity, and on the whole fail to refute the central argument for deletion: that there are insufficient reliable sources to write an article on this topic from a neutral point of view. Several participants mentioned that there may be material suitable for merging into other articles. If anyone wants to do that, I can temporarily restore the deleted version as a draft. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CFORK in a long series of such articles that have been created (see recent AfDs:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs). It is largely based on one source (Talk:Destruction_of_books_in_post-independence_Croatia which is a heavy WP:POV/WP:FRINGE of an advocate of one of the state factions in the Yugoslav Wars. Thus, the article has a large WP:NOTABILITY problem because its legitimacy as a subject, can't be established in independent sources. The article tries to solve the notability problem - the fact that it can't be established that there was an organized mass destruction of books in Croatia by the introduction of sentences such as In 2012 Viktor Ivančić published a text dedicated to destruction of books in Croatia during 1990's, underlining that in 2012 it was basically impossible to buy books published in Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina in Croatian bookstores, which he perceived as an extension of bibliocide. Setting aside the absurdity of the claim that in Croatia you can't buy books published in Serbia, this creates an even larger problem as it establishes the article as extreme WP:FRINGE content. The original title of the article was Bookocide in Croatia. After it was moved to at least solve the WP:POVNAMING issues, it was heavily tagged. Then, back in May, I said in the talkpage that if none of the issues were addressed, it would get to AfD. The article has remained in an "abandoned", heavily tagged status (one of the many that stay in this state for many years). I think that it's time to delete it. Maleschreiber (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly WP:FORK, not notable and fringe. N.Hoxha (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I said opinion about this article earlier on talk page. The article is mostly based on a single source. There were and regular removal of the books in the Croatia. There was and war destruction of the books(bombing, vandalism, etc) on all sides. Based on the above I think that this article should be deleted. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Opose - We have already had similar discussions. Numerous RS are cited in the article. We should not relativize crimes and discriminatory policies with stories about “all sides”. Moreover, it is well-documented that destruction started in 1990, shortly before the Yugoslav Wars. If someone doesn't think that the article is of good quality, they can rearrange it in accordance with the policies and sources, but it's not a solution to delete something that is well documented. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Those events took place regardless of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and personal attempts at relativization ("they all did it", "it was regularly done"), which are appalling. The key sources are reliable and calling this article and events fringe is simply ignorant in my book.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "they all did it", if you comment on me this refers to the destruction in the Croatian War of Independence. "The devastating fact is that despite all international laws and regulations, up to ground were destroyed as many as forty-two libraries, page 15. As for "it was regularly done" claim, each country has its own regulations about removal of books(old, worn out, unusable, uninteresting, etc), including Croatia. Mikola22 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of things have happened, and it happens all the time, every day, including a whole host of events and phenomena, but, whether we like it or not, they are not necessarily included in Wikipedia, and there are a whole host of reasons why, too.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per all above. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, but use sourceable chunks or merge them with suitable existing article. Argument: Although it is not a mystery and there is not the slightest doubt that populist daily politics and nationalist intrigues spawned the idea to ​​remove as many books written in what was considered not-really-Croatian, and printed in both Cyrillic and Latin, as possible, it never, at any point nor in any shape or form, induced a uniform and consistent action, nor introduction of state-level policies, all the while no one claimed to know what happened with these books, after being removed from a number of public libraries and other public spaces, including abandoned privately owned ones - were they “destroyed,” burned, thrown away, stored, sold, donated, whatever. Except that one book, which is the only real attempt to study it, and the sole source for this article, the removal was almost exclusively talked about in the context of nationalistic intrigues and political games, including international, the Croatian-Serbian, quarrels. But, what's most disturbing about this article, and especially its title, is that it evokes a feeling and is reminiscent of similar Nazi policies. However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. While being inaccurate, the title itself is deceptively suggestive.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Santasa99. Hope you're well. These are some very good points and there is an ad Hitlerum implication in the article, which further confirms that wikipedia shouldn't be used as a WP:SOAPBOX about political advocacy. Side comment: it's basically the same group of people who unsuccessfully try to !keep these articles every time, so the closing admin should take that into account when the discussion is closed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea to bash and label editors who do not agree with your particular viewpoint? Try to behave yourself like a civil person.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  22:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However, whatever happened in Croatia was not "the destruction of books in post-independent Croatia", there was no systematic compulsory removal, let alone "destruction", not to mention that there were no mandatory laws that forced public and private property owners to " destroy "or hand over their non-Croatian language and/or Cyrillic script books to anyone, and so on, and so forth. - This is simply not true. Numerous RS are cited in the article, that campaign is well-documented. For example, many historians and intellectuals, who are otherwise known for criticizing Serbian elites, have spoken publicly about these events in Croatia. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said it didn't happen? And since your conclusion (t)his is simply not true came in the context of the rest of this long quote from my post and your subsequent elaboration of the sources, and all that regardless of everything I said in the first sentence of my comment, I have to ask what exactly is not true in my argument?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was systematic compulsory removal and destruction of books and cultural property. Not only that but destruction of anti-fascist heritage, memorials to one of the most brutal and deadliest genocides, monuments to Serbs, even Nikola Tesla, etc. All this is well documented. Even Croatian media and Croatian historians have discussed this, for example one of the most prominent Hrvoje Klasić. None of this is unknown, nor is fringe..--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the generally positive review of Lešaja's book by Robert Hayden in Slavic Review says the book notes that whilst there was pressure on librarians to "cleanse" their libraries of "unsuitable" books, the pressure was "informal". Your characterisation of it as "compulsory" is clearly wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose We have a notable topic here and the sources used are okay. It would be better to have some in English, but regardless, it took place and RS are clear about this. Soundwaweserb (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Maleschreiber gave a good summary regarding the reasons. The article is largely based on a single, non-English source, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The article has a very exceptional claim, that the discarding of old, obsolete books (that were written in a scrypt or a standardized variety of a language that are no longer official, or with a strong ideological bias) in a time frame of over 20 years is a "bookocide", "libricide", or a "mass destruction". Yet, it doesn't have high-quality sources to back the claim. Outdated books are often replaced by libraries. I somehow doubt that school libraries in Slovenia have their shelves filled with books in Serbo-Croatian/Cyrillic from the 1970s, or the likes of "Edvard Kardelj's collected works". Tezwoo (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, article is a worthless WP:POVFORK, no content worth saving. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Trying to look at this objectively, no matter the personal view of the creator or other editors, it would appear that this did happen, and it was notable enough that there is RS supporting it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose More than 30 references and sources, no reason for delete. --MareBG (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , most sources and information's from the article were based on same source. Mikola22 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The subject crosses the basic notability threshold; there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been noted in the previous AfDs, many editors from Serbian wikipedia who aren't reguarly involved in editing in English wikipedia joined the discussion. The same phenomenon has occurred in every AfD and the community has been able to assess it for what it is. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the weight of the arguments that count, not how many !keep or !delete have been collected. Now, a side comment for the sources: There aren't 30 sources which support the article, there are some reviews of the book which is the main source that put forward this theory and there are several articles from dubious websites and blogs from authors who want to show how unwelcome "Serbian books" are in Croatia. The article is a collection of all these different concepts and ideas. The subject doesn't exist outside of that one book - it is the wikipedia article via its narrative which tries to create the scope of the subject: namely, that some incidents during the Yugoslav Wars (which every editor here surely condemns regardless of opinions about this article), an allegedly low availability of books from Serbia in Croatian bookstores and a low amount of books in Cyrillic in Croatian libraries - all together can be summed up as "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". This scope, however, is not established in independent, reliable bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tabloids that talk about that one, non-English, source are the basis of the article and its dubious theory. And for the record, there are also sources, of at least the same quality, that dispute the claim from that single source. Just to name a few:  . Not to mention that authors such as Ramet, Tanner, Hoare, that extensively wrote about the Yugoslav Wars, say nothing about this "bookocide". Tezwoo (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge Some of the contents can be merged. I don't think the subject is notable enough to deserve separate article. For example, VRS destroyed Vijećnica and Oriental Institute, and burned a lot of the books, but I'm not sure I could find quality sources to name an article "Bibliocide in Bosnian War". Rather, I could move all the information into Vijećnica and Oriental Institute articles. To fellow Opposing colleagues: IF there was systematic effort to destroy books in Croatia, clearly, there should be some extraordinary sources for such claims. Mhare (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These events have nothing to do with each other. No source brings them into a temporal or causal relationship. This is not just destruction in war, but systematic on several levels over several years.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That sort of systematic destruction on several levels over several years which is the subject of the article is not confirmed in bibliography. It is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim without RS sources which confirm it. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not exceptional claim or fringe, it is confirmed in bibliography and it was covered even by Croatian media and Croatian historians. All editors know that this happened, we should not hide or relativize.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was using it as analogy what went into my thought process if I would reasonably tried to decide the subject I'm writing about deserves separate article. The key things is: reason. There is lack of it, and some editors here are too deep in some of nationalistic shit to be ever reasonable ;-) Mhare (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, I know post-independence Croatia is into some pretty nasty far-right shit, with CW Wikipedia on top of it. I'm aware of it, I'm just trying to present you reasonable person-to-person arguments, and not just repeating same old. Stuff that happened can be surely moved into right article. It's like with Demonization of Serbs, article that has no place on Wikipedia as I explained with an analogy there is no Demonization of Japanese and Germans, there should be no Demonization of Serbs, but yet, y'all automatically voted for it! As all the Croatian editors voted for Tesla's nationality. Ridiculous and tiring! Mhare (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge reliably sourced content to Independence of Croatia or similar article, as this appears to be a subtopic. With no personal experience in this area, I'm basing my opinion on the arguments above and a perusal of some of the sources. It would be much easier to assess if sources could be found for the alleged contemporary criticism when the action was occurring. That said, while many sources stem from the publication of a single book, they all felt this topic warranted coverage and they do no appear to express that this event didn't happen. Even editors voting for deletion acknowledge that this was an occurrence, so I'm unsure how this is WP:FRINGE or how we serve the encyclopedia by removing information that (presumably) reliable sources covered. There may be a current lack of details as to what caused the action or what the actual result was (were the books destroyed or just relocated?), so a title change may be warranted and the content should be copyedited for tone and validity. —Ost (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ost, you are on the right track, and indeed some controversial (I would say even shameful in some instances) occurrence did happened, so some information deserve to be preserved, however not as a standalone article, and certainly not with this title and narrative-tone. If you look back by checking article history, the whole thing started as a "bookocide", with a title "Bookocide in post-independence Croatia", which was complete nonsense so we managed to wrestle it into this halfway neutral but still quite a bit heavy-handed on implications.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove all the dubious and unrelated elements from the article and kept only specific incidents - very little would remain. So little in fact that it would fail WP:NOTABILITY on its own and it would have to be added as a few sentences to another article. The subject of the article is a narrative put forward by the article itself and one book, but it's not a shared narrative in bibliography - even in the article's sources. The reality is that this article cannot be salvaged or be made into something else - that would have happened by now. Instead it has remained in this heavily tagged status and will remain so if kept, because the only actual option that exists here is to WP:TNT delete it and any editor who wants to can write about specific incidents in specific articles without the burden of having to encompass it to a grand narrative of a systematic, organized, all-Croatian persecution of everything Cyrillic since 1991. This extremely particular political-ideological-social narrative which the article puts forward doesn't find validation in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is notable. The state of the article notwithstanding, that is not a reason for deletion. Many articles are in very poor state, but that is not a reason for deletion. The only criterion is whether the topic is notable. Khirurg (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Weakly-sourced content fork, per others. Zaathras (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I gave the topic a google search and there appears to be coverage of this topic even in English language sources.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice I was initially in two minds about this, hence my late comment. On one hand, there is one reliably published book about this topic (however the current article title is not neutral and the article should be at Disposal of books in post-independence Croatia because the books weren't "destroyed", they were disposed of), the book was positively reviewed by Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh in the academic journal Slavic Review in January 2013, and the publication of the book itself is the subject of several news reports, mainly in the yellow pressa and commentary by non-experts. I note, with considerable concern, that a 2018 review of recent history of Croatian libraries in the international journal of librarians IFLA Journal makes no mention whatsoever of this "phenomena" of book destruction. On the other hand, this article is a complete POV mess that has been tagged for months, and the creator, Antidiskriminator, has done nothing to fix it. Antidiskriminator has created several highly POV anti-Croat/pro-Serb articles since their long-term TBAN on Serbia and Serbs in the 20th century was lifted, and IMHO their continuing poor wikibehaviour and POV-pushing agenda shouldn't be rewarded. So, as far as I am concerned, while the subject exists in sources, it is only one book and reporting on that one book, mainly in the yellow press, and so I am concerned that WP:ONESOURCE may apply here (a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as Maleschreiber has already stated. But more importantly, even if there should be an article on the subject, the extensive highly POV agenda of this one isn't it, and this is a classic example of where WP:TNT should be applied. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Anti-Serb sentiment#Croatia. I had seen the nomination but only now decided to step in. The topic deserves coverage on Wikipedia, but the article as is now is written very badly. Hence it should be deleted, and then maybe rewritten to be in line with policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:Title, and to cover the entire destruction of books in the territories that were part of Yugoslavia -- not only cases when the books were written by Serbs or people perceived as "pro-Serb". Similar cases were Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito and Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, written by the very same editor, and redirected so later they can be written from scratch in line with Wiki rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing editor As we know, in such cases consensus is determined by the way how arguments stand against Wiki policies, not just by counting !votes. Such Balkan discussions have for years been damaged by canvassing etc. The most recent case: other editors have expressed concerns about canvassing, as lately in every discussion perceived as a "voting process", certain editors on srwiki who rarely edit on enwiki, appear and !vote the same way. Some of them have made blind reverts too here or there without any tp participation etc. Of course this does not mean that editors from srwiki or sqwiki are not welcome to participate here and give their opinion, but in any case the consensus building process should not be held hostage to blind "votes" by any side. I see someone has already put a related template at the head of the discussion, due to their own concerns. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I also have concerns about canvassing/vote stacking from sr WP. There are several editors who have voted here who virtually never edit former Yugoslav articles on en WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Clearly notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've rewritten the article to include those reliable sources since no one else seemed remotely willing to do so. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree there has been a lot canvassing from sr WP towards this AfD with many factually false arguments too from several editors who voted !(strong) keep.  what exactly have you rewritten? It's the same article  with the same sources  - with slightly better styling and grammar, but with an even heavier POV than before as now it openly claims that a "libricide" happened in Croatia. The extreme POV and FRINGE still amazes every time I read it  There are enough good arguments in this AfD to delete a very bad piece of propaganda that wants us to believe that in Croatia today you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic and as of the latest rewrite that a libricide took place in 1990-2010. The latest round of editing by AB really shows that the only solution for this article is to delete it. The alternative is for it to be a hub for even heavier POVs. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything. If you disagree with the term libricide then take it up with the likes of Dora Komnenović and Robert Hayden. And deriding other volunteers as "propaganda" peddlers isn't bound to get a discussion to go your way. Learn some manners. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is a piece of political advocacy - one of the reasons that caused it to be heavily tagged. I didn't mention any particular editor, so don't make comments that can be construed as WP:ASPERSIONs. Now, I really want an answer . You based your !strong keep on the fact that you included . But as everyone can see the sources are the same (Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia)-old version. The changes are mostly in styling and use of English and the fact that now the article openly has a section named "libricide" - a very heavy POV claim. I won't take it to Robert Hayden, because he's the reviewer of the book, not its writer. Peacemaker67 can you check it too? I think that it highlights a large problem when any editor claims that they added sources as a reason for !keep when they haven't done so. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking it isn't good rhetorical form to vehemently claim that you know more about a text than the person who wrote it. For the record, the only references that were retained from AD's version are Komnenović and the Ugrešić interview. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that I had a cache problem and the page didn't load properly. Now, I can see your edits - so an apology is in order about that particular issue. But I don't see how your edits confirm that a "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" existed/exists that country. The heavy POV issues from AD's version remain with all the claims that you can't buy books in Serbian/Cyrillic in Croatia and the new claim about libricide. You've also introduced contradictions by trying to redefine the article as one that encompasses all cases where literature has been targetted in Croatia by any group. In the lead you write that and then in the article you write that  That can be written in LGBT rights in Croatia too, but the main problem is that the scope of the article has become an all-encompassing narrative about every claim that exists about the targetting of literature in Croatia. So, I will definitely apologize to you for not recognizing at first that you did indeed add new sources - but those sources are used in a way that creates the subject of the article as an editorial narrative, but the sources themself don't mention the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, is something that may or may not have happened, but what does it have to do with "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia" or "Libricide"? It brings me back to my original argument that much of the article isn't about the subject itself, which can't be confirmed in bibliography ("Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia") even in the latest round of editing which reintroduced the libricide claim. If Tuđman had an ideological problem with Andrić and blacklisted him, you can probably add that somewhere, but why is it part of a  "libricide"?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perica clearly states that Andrić's works, alongside those of multiple others, were slated for "cleansing". The decision to rename this article to Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia (instead of Bookocide/Libricide in Croatia) makes my recent additions even less contentious. Since the scope is now wider, it doesn't preclude me from citing sources where the words "bookocide" and "libricide" aren't explicitly used, and includes all destruction of books, as opposed to solely the JNA shelling of libraries or solely the Croatian government's policy of getting rid of ethnically, linguistically and politically undesirable works (which multiple reliable sources refer to as libricide). As for the 2010/2018 contradiction, that's a phrasing issue than can be easily fixed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. We cannot say with certainty that all newspaper articles are accurate, and we do not know who writes these articles. In this case Jutarnji List at that time is opposition newspapers. If we consider a newspaper to be a historical record then it is foundation for some book but most sources either have Lešaja book as a source or use information's ie sources from his book. It’s as someone writing a book about war crimes using mostly newspaper articles as evidence, I don't know if such a book could be used as a source on Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ehhmm, no. Perica's book was published in 2002. Lešaja's book was published in 2012. The fact that two different scholars may have used the same primary source in their writings (I'm not even going to both to check, I'll take your word for it) is irrelevant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

,, the discontent regarding language and literature issues in Croatia, and polemics that took place within the disgruntled (mostly liberal) portion of society, which I will never shy away admitting to be a part of, nor that I (among other things) disagree with a language political games and intrigues, and, to stay on tracks, that I do not like the possibility that publishers and sellers in Croatia do not want to deal with Cyrillic literature, or that readers/customers do not want to read/buy it for whatever reason, still does not justify the title and narrative of this article. The statements cited here as a sources are not always relevant because they are misconstrued and/or taken out of context, not in the narrow immediate sense of the citation/statements meaning itself but in the broader context of purpose and message as well as the moment and the atmosphere in society at large. None of this justifies a standalone article, let alone with a title like we have now. I tend to agree more often than not with a likes of Pavlaković, Ugrešić and other like-minded people, and I accept many arguments in their polemics on this situation as well, but I can still spot attempts to use it to exaggerate or completely distort reality.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as it stands now the article would be accurate as List of controversies and incidents related to books in Croatia - with the libricide claim as a large subsection and without a substantial number of actual events. An article with that title for many reasons would get deleted. Some parts are also misleading because may or may not be actually true but the causes are many and are more related to the collapse of public libraries in the post-socialist Balkans. A comparable number of discarded Encyclopedias of Yugoslavia probably exists in Serbia and elsewhere. The narrative, however, which tries to bind all these issues together doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the subject of this article doesn't exist bibliography. The issue is not whether Perica (2002) is RS or not, but whether he puts forward the events which are listed in the article in the same scope as the article. Well, he doesn't - he examines the public discourse in the early 1990s in Croatia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It probably happened in every country in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed, purges of library shelves of various literature was common practice.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of this article took those events from Croatia (which happened in Central, East and SE Europe after socialism collapsed) and made an original article about burning of books in Croatia. Therefore the intent was clearly not good, and now we have what we have. Mikola22 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent edits to the article is basically an addition of more content from a source that was already there ("Komnenović 2018" was previously named "Bevernage & Wouters 2018"), some unrelated content from Perica 2002, a 2018 incident on a carnival that is also off topic, and content from a review of Lešaja's book.
 * As for the background, Knuth's 30-page section titled "Greater Serbia" was somehow summarized with a detailed description of one instance of vandalization of a Serb library by Croatian irregulars in 1992, and a short, general mention of JNA's shelling of libraries. Again a problem of undue weight, considering that the shelling of Croatian libraries/destruction of books by the JNA and Serb paramilitaries are covered in countless more sources than the subject we are discussing here. The current version of the article has the same problems.
 * And yes, throughout eastern Europe, post-communist countries largely discarded/removed/replaced books from the communist (1945-1989/1990) era. Here's a short overview of some of the reasons for that: Tezwoo (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not deny cultural genocide and discriminatory policies, despite being well documented by RS. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation. Such ideologies should be uncompromisingly described as they are and, in essence, to be condemn. It is often difficult to do that on Wikipedia, especially on Balkan topics. Still, I hope that rules and policies will prevail in the end. Perica clearly use same source(Croatian newspaper) that is, he copies source from Ante Lešaja book. For all this information's additional sources would be needed. - Such arguments are repeated over and over again. (WP:BLUDGEON?) If Perica and countless other authors have used this source, it means that it is reliable and significant. The bias of the Western media during the Yugoslav wars was well studied, often based on a single source and creating something that scholars defined as the “illusion of multiple sources”. In that case, we should edit 90% of the articles related to the Yugoslav wars. Hrvoje Klasić often talked about this topic. The Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is far from pro-Serbian, also discussed. All this suggests that the topic is more than relevant. No one explained it in another context. Mentioning other post-communist countries and the crimes of Serbs is relativization and trivialization. When the sources put them in that context, then it can be explained in the article. Authors are often discriminated against on the basis of origin. Here, Vjekoslav Perica is a Croatian historian and is relevant. The author of the article has significantly improved the quality. It is difficult now for anyone impartial to dispute that. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--WEBDuB (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Vjekoslav Perica doesn't examine anything close to the narrative he's being used as a back up to. Cultural genocide - a very serious allegation is being put forward so casually (- in the form of libricide - in this CFORK that loses all meaning as a term. The narrative of the article doesn't exist in bibliography, thus the article is a WP:SOAPBOX patchwork of unrelated events, narratives, ideas - all into a grand narrative that has no analytical meaning, the "Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia". The discardment of books from the yugoslav socialist era, Tuđman's dislike of Ivo Andrić, a library that was targetted by irregulars in 1992 during the Yugoslav Wars in response to JNA actions and a book that was burnt publicly in 2018 at an anti-LGBTQ rally don't fall in the narrative and subject which requires wikipedia to have an article about because they all involve books. That much should be obvious.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sources exist" is not an argument when those sources don't deal with the subject you're putting forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Honestly, after like 20 years of looking at these kinds of issues in the English Wikipedia, I would think that we as a community would grow to recognize it more efficiently, but apparently it still requires so much effort and walls of text to get rid of such obvious gaming of the system. I recall a number of articles having been started by the same editor (Antidiskriminator) on various topics interesting to Serbian nationalists, and every time it's the same pattern - let's use the English Wikipedia to examine some weird nationalist talking point from the angle of - hey, surely if there's N random "sources" talking about this, therefore their narrative must be worth expounding on at length! Guess what - no. Just - no! The encyclopedia is not the place for this. I suppose it's logical to expect that every time these kinds of articles get written, they're "better" at it, with more purported support in sources, and it becomes less obvious they're pushing a point based on what is not an exhaustive examination of source material, and they stay online for *years*. Anyway, once this kind of abuse is belatedly noticed, we need to react by deterring further gaming of the system - admins need to examine the editing history of any editor who willingly contributed to this mess and voiced unequivocal support for this - for further WP:ARBMAC abuse. We know that history just keeps repeating itself, and we have to expect the same to happen again. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, here! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that! --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy should NOT be used and supported by involved admins. That is textbook abuse of power through labeling other editors and building an atmosphere where editors can not express their opinion freely.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions on talk pages are one thing, constantly POV pushing in actual articles is a completely different thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aww, this is so quaint. You're not only concocting this weird appeal to "omg we're being persecuted", but you already immediately called me an "involved admin". This is a tactic that has very often been used by WP:ARBMAC abusers, using WP:INVOLVED as a cudgel to try to dissuade any admin action. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that violates WP:NPOV. As a second choice, a short merge would be fine. Any section about this should have very clear in-line attribution to sources, especially Dora Komnenović, so readers can discern the POV sources from the more neutral ones. Archrogue (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page contains valid references. The topic of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Notability. Also per conclusion at WP:ANI (link) - the article isn't made up or some propaganda thing is established well enough...the topic is real enough, The phenomenon is called 'knjigocid' in Serbo-Croatian which would literally translate as 'bookocide' in English. Yes, it is a travesty against the English language, but no, it is not fabrication. and Well, I didn't say anything about the topic not being real.. Any eventual issues of the article can be resolved in collaboration between editors. Wikipedia is based on collaboration. Not on "No article/editor - no problem" attitude demonstrated by some editors here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like the article about satanization of Serbs which you wrote before this one, "sources exist" is not an argument, when those sources either don't discuss the subject/narrative which you put forward or consist of one political advocacy pamphlet which put forward the narrative of "knjigocid". And don't use non-admin comments as "ANI conclusions" or half-quoted admin comments in order to strengthen your narrative. Now, I'm not going to fully quote that last comment in order to show what it truly says - any editor can read it for themselves and judge if what it puts forward is what Antidiskriminator claims it does. I'm against the practice of quoting editors who don't take part in a discussion in order to strengthen a particular narrative which they themselves haven't chosen to do so.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is difficult to establish consensus when the same arguments are repeated multiple times. Some that favor deleting seem to argue WP:FORK and WP:FRINGE, and some that vote keep seem to argue WP:N. Hopefully a relist will make consensus clearer on this article for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic should be covered in a neutral way. This article, even after being rewritten during this Afd discussion, continues to have the same problems. A new article, covering all cases of book destruction in former Yugoslavia, could be written with neutrality and NPOV wording. Sadsadas (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article may have some issues, but the topic is notable and discussed in reliable scholarly works: . I don't see what would make Lešaja's book Knjigocid/Bookocide (as mentioned here) not reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From her paper: "Nevertheless, the only two accounts entirely devoted to “libricide” are the Prosvjeta magazine special issue on “Bibliocide-Culturecide: Where One Burns Books, One Will Soon Burn People,” published in 2003 by the Serbian Cultural Society “Prosvjeta” (Srpsko kulturno društvo Prosvjeta) and Ante Lešaja’s volume about the destruction of books in Croatia between 1990 and 2010, Knjigocid. Uništavanje knjiga u Hrvatskoj 1990.-ih (Libricide. The Destruction of Books in Croatia in the 1990s)". The point is that most of the article(informations) are originally based on Ante Lešaja book. Otherwise, he himself research and write in the book whether some libraries are destroyed(in Serbian bombing) etc, and he gives his conclusions whether they were really destroyed or not. It could even be WP:FRINGE because no one confirms his conclusions (historian, etc). Also from her paper: "Lešaja’s work constitutes a valuable starting point for anyone interested in cultural heritage destruction in Croatia, the former Yugoslav area and broader", while here only Croatia is subject of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 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.