Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandals of the Serbian Progressive Party


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is consensus here that the page is unacceptable synthesis, even if individual incidents are cited. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Scandals of the Serbian Progressive Party

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another non-NPOV article that is full of original research and various accusations that are not even linked to the Serbian Progressive Party but instead to certain individuals. A similar article, which also included various accusations that are not connected to the Serbian Progressive Party, was created back in 2020 and has been since deleted. Some of this material could instead be copy-edited to neutral style and added to articles of these individuals (Aleksandar Vučić, Aleksandar Vulin, Bratislav Gašić, etc.), but adding all of this together to a single article that is not even relevant to the Serbian Progressive Party is just a bunch of nonsense. Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics,  and Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Please be concise in advocating for your position on what should happen to this article from the limited options that are available: Keep, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is inherently related to the Serbian Progressive Party as all of the people involved in the scandals are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and have been for years. All of these people are interconnected in their wrongdoings. If we can have Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration i think this will work too.
 * All of these accusations are backed by sources like KRIK, BIRN, and Insajder, which are independent investigative media. In the article itself is listed the reason why i cannot diversify my sources more, most news media in Serbia have turned to exclusively pro-government tabloid journalism over the last few years.
 * While i can see why you might think the article is non-NPOV, i think it would be much more helpful if you were to correct/point out the specific lack of NPOV instead of flagging an entire article for deletion. Graphite2277 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true, not all individuals listed here are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and even if they were, that does not mean that SNS itself was directly involved in the scandals, which the title of this article implies. There is a great difference between the Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration article and this one. First one is in the name, this article claims that all of these accusations are related to a single party, which is incorrect, while the scandals listed on the Ronald Reagan administration article were all investigated and the individuals were convicted/pleaded guilty. The accusations here were not done by SNS nor was the party involved in them.
 * There is also original research and misinterpretation of sources, here is an example:
 * For 300 out of 365 days in 2022, the president Aleksandar Vučić was present on some national television programme – Source says that from 1 June 2022 to 31 May 2023, Vučić appeared on 300 television programmes in total, not that he appeared on some national television programmes for 300 days
 * Again, although the article contains a lot of original research, the article still does not imply how these accusations are related to SNS, or how SNS was involved in any of them, at all. Even if the article was to be renamed to something else it would still have a lot of content that is not related to the actual topic. As I've said, these accusations are either related to individuals, not the party, while some were related to the government (COVID, 2023 shootings, Belgrade Waterfront), and most of these are already present on these articles. I'm not disputing the reliability of KRIK, BIRN, Insajder or other sources, they are all reliable. The main issue here is not the sourcing (though there is unsourced content), but rather that these numerous allegations and accusations, which are already present on most articles related to these topics, are not related to SNS, even though the title implies that SNS was involved in every one of these scandals, which is not true. I'll give you some examples:
 * Media freedom in Serbia already covers the media situation in Serbia,
 * Aleksandar Vučić covers some controversies and policies of Vučić, though not all of them,
 * Siniša Mali and Siniša Mali plagiarism scandal on the diplomas,
 * Belgrade Waterfront and Savamala,
 * Aleksandar Obradović (whistleblower) on Krušik,
 * Belgrade school shooting on the response of the shootings,
 * 2021–2022 Serbian environmental protests on Rio Tinto,
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia on COVID-19,
 * and most importantly Serbian Progressive Party already covers accusations in which SNS was involved in.
 * The article has been already tagged for NPOV, not by me, and reading through the article, not everything written is in neutral tone. You have even sorted the controversies into "minor" and "major" ones even though no source implies this. Vacant0 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While not all individuals mentioned in this article are members of SNS, i only mentioned non-member individuals who are directly connected to members of SNS and who presumably stood to gain from it (Mitrović getting country funds, Belivuk's clan being able to operate for over 10 years because they were involved with the president's son etc.). All of these are SNS scandals because what is a political party if not it's members and their public image? It would not be fitting to name this article "Scandals of the Serbian government" or something similar, as all of these scandals happened since SNS became the leading party in 2012.
 * Again these are all inherently related to SNS as their members were involved and the only reason they were involved is because they're members of the party. As for source misinterpretation, i assure you it was accidental and i would be more than happy to fix any instances of me misinterpreting a source by providing another source or changing the wording, although i am more than positive that any hard accusations made in this article are properly backed. The same applies to non-NPOV. Please do point out more examples of original research, non-NPOV and source misinterpretation so i can promptly fix them.
 * While some of these scandals are already present in some articles i believe it is a much better choice to just link to that article here or vice-versa (whichever has a more detailed explanation). On the other hand some of these scandals are not mentioned anywhere else and there is not an adequate page to move them to.
 * The sorting between controversies and scandals was truthfully done on my own accord, where minor controversies are ones where the action was technically legal but very unpopular among the Serbian people and at most caused financial harm, while "scandals" involve a major loss of country funds or life, or just blatant disregard for the law. I am more than happy to remove this and put everything in a single "Scandals" section. Graphite2277 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem. You have used original research to link everything in the article to SNS and that is the reason why this article should be deleted. The article cannot be fixed or corrected because SNS was not involved in majority of these accusations. Individuals were involved instead. SNS cannot be inherently related to the accusations when there is no proof that SNS was involved in these accusations. Claiming that it is, is original research. Other than this, I won't repeat what I have already said. You can read my comments again, read more Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and in the future use the Articles for creation process to create articles until you get more familiar with how Wikipedia articles are supposed to look like. Vacant0 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth wouldn't it be correct to rename the article to "Scandals involving members of the Serbian Progressive Party", and to adjust the wording a bit? Nowhere except in the article title and the opening statement have i implied any of these scandals were the entire party's fault. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh also just to add: Nearly all of these people involved in scandals of various severity were allowed to keep climbing the political ladder. None were ever prosecuted, the party itself never even condemned their actions. This is what i mean when i say the party essentially supported these controversies. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. No reason to have this article (as well as the others mentioned that are non-NPOVs). Боки   ✉  13:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: As above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is cited, but all these incidents (many of them with our old friend "Sources Say") seem like an unconnected gripe list mad at a party structure more than specific things a certain cabinet did, and 'shame' articles just because a certain party didn't 'punish' someone enough never really fly here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, this feels like a bad way to present information. Any extremely important or historic scandals would of course be covered at Serbian Progressive Party. Ones that are less important but which still commanded media attention over a lengthy period of time should have their own individual articles, and ones that only had an impact over a single news scandal and did not receive lasting attention should really not be covered in detail per WP:NOTNEWS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2023 (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.