Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian war crimes


 * 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 as the rough consensus indicates. Note that, in order to preserve attribution, if any editor wishes to move forward with splitting, the edit history will need to be undeleted. –MuZemike 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbian war crimes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The main problem with the article is that it weaves together disparate incidents that are only marginally related to one another into one giant SYNTH so as to demonize a particular ethnic group. It treats events that occurred at different times and places, over a period of 100 years or so, as if they were part of a single unified plan, which is not how these events are treated in the literature. The way it is phrased and written, it also places blame on a particular ethnic group, when blame for such acts is usually directed at specific organizations or governments. The various parts of the article should be merged into the appropriate articles and "Serbian War Crimes" itself should be a category, as is the case with Category:Croatian War Crimes.

Athenean (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment we have an article called German war crimes, which also deals with events in different places, and periods, in one article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that article should be deleted too, as it is just a list of crimes, with almost no other text. It can be replaced by a category. Vanjagenije 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Split by war/period -- WWI, WWII, Yugoslav Wars of Disintegration. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  German war crimes should be split into one article for WW I and one for WW II, which I plan to propose shortly. Are IP editors allowed to participate in AfDs anyway?  Athenean (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It is way to problematic under numerous questions, but first, all of those things cannot be added under the same umbrella as horrific master plan, as it was represented here. Article is POV like this, and cannot be fix in any regular way, as its main existence is forking. Also, per tags, talk page, and all other that are needed for delete. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep the article itself is referenced and the subject notable. WhiteWriter maybe the article is too large and should be split, but AfD isn't the place to discuss such issues or whether the article is written in a pov way.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Athenean and WhiteWriter.--Andrija (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and split into few separate articles. The crimes mentioned in this article are by no means connected to each other. Vanjagenije 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "delete and split". Please pick one or the other.  You cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Absolutely unacceptable as it stands, COATRACKING the various atrocity complaints of several wars. I think encyclopedic articles can be written about WWII and the Bosnian conflict, definitely, but I would be more than a little surprised if the latter is not already sufficiently covered under other article titles. Needs to be split in three, at a minimum. If this isn't done, my recommendation would be to DELETE. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A textbook example of WP:SYNTH violation. There is no need for splitting, because the article is written in summary style, and almost every section has a main somewhere else (maybe merge something from "denial" section elsewhere). Exactly that summary style is the primary and incurable problem -- it attempts to summarize a list of disparate events. No such user (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Athenean and WhiteWriter, a great big DELETE from me. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. --UrbanVillager (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for this article, really, nor for German war crimes, American war crimes, etc. if separate, more detailed articles (will) exist (and they exist). Titles of such articles are offending, not all men who were/are members of one nation are guilty for misdeeds of individuals. -- Bojan   Talk  08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is pure propaganda article. This has nothing with encyclopedia. --Alexmilt (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I totally oppose the nominator arguments "...it weaves together disparate incidents...as if they were part of a single unified plan,...". The idea of territorial expansion of Serbia originally formulated in 1844, in Načertanije, a secret political program of the Principality of Serbia, according to which the new Serbian state could include the neighboring areas of Montenegro, Northern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Croatia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Athenean, WhiteWriter, No such user and Bojan. The article is trying to summarize atrocities from conflicts which have very little in common (different eras, different contexts, etc.) and therefore looks like a chapter taken from some right-wing conspiracy theorists. Perhaps some sections could be split into articles about Serbian crimes by wars and conflicts, but as it stands most of the content already exists in related articles. The fact that there was a recurring theme among nutcases from a particular region or an ethnic group in an arbitrarily selected timespan does not imply that there was an underlying conspiracy behind it. The existence of such articles add nothing to Wikipedia and only serve to advance paranoid agendas. '' Timbouctou 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject obviously meets the criteria set forth at WP:GNG and there is a precedent for this type of subject at Category:War crimes committed by country. The talk page does not show any strong effort to resolve POV concerns, so I'm left with the impression that any problems in the article are fixable. Location (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles in that category have cleanup tags on them. That may mean nothing, but it may also mean that they're not really a representative example. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Split at the very least. Conflating these different sets of war crimes into a single specific story (rather than something part of history of Serbia) is really a blatant violation of WP:NPOV because it's based on a biased narrative. Individual articles Serbian war crimes in the Balkan Wars, Serbian war crimes in World War II, Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav Wars could be a useful addition to the existing articles and could be cross-linked elsewhere. This, OTOH, can not. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (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.