Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (fifth 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 no consensus. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Closer's note: The scope of this AfD nomination is limited to the article Serbophobia only. As most editors seem to agree that some "anti-X sentiment", "X-phobia", or "anti-Xism" articles are legitimate (examples that were noted include antisemitism, anti-Americanism, and homophobia), the issue becomes: is Serbophobia one of them? Although there is general agreement that the article is or was problematic (it has changed substantially since the deletion nomination), there is no consensus that the article ought to be deleted (i.e., no consensus that topic itself is not encyclopedic). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbophobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article should be deleted along with all other Anti-X articles, for example anti-Hellenism, anti-Macedonian sentiment etc. It is full of WP:OR and cannot get any better. In the Balkans if we are to believe the Wikipedia articles everyone has discriminated against everyone else. And every piece of history is somehow discriminating or cast in a negative light towards some ethnic group. This is ridiculous. We essentially have a load of POV forks that contradict each other. Delete.

Alternatively merge into an article History of ethnic discrimination in the Balkans which would cover the subject in a neutral manner, split on a historical, not ethnic basis. - Francis Tyers · 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Other articles in this deletion series:


 * Articles for deletion/Anti-Bosniak sentiment (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Anti-Croatian sentiment (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Albanophobia
 * Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (fifth nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian discrimination
 * Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment


 * Delete. Time to loose Serbophobia for the same reasons we deleted Afrophobia and Negrophobia. --Ezeu 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as in other similar cases. Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. The present article asserts the existence of some such literature (though only originating on the Serbian side), but apparently its authors haven't actually used that literature and haven't checked it for reliability. The article as it stands is still an OR synthesis of quoted fragments from here and there. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations (such as the Serbien muss sterbien sentiment in WWI Germany) can be integrated elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral with reservation to change my mind If the other phobia articles about Balkan nations are deleted then this article should also be deleted.--Noah30 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism. Tankred 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (per arguments given here. Dahn 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SYN. KissL 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - all POV forks and OR.--Aldux 14:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, as the phenomenon itself is real and documented. Biruitorul 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The phenomenon exists and discussed in reliable sources. If the article is bad, it must be cleaned, not deleted. Mukadderat 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per this search Addhoc 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It is documented and describes real facts. These kind of situations occured and there is no real need to delete the article, but to improveit. -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And per this search. -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. WP:NOR, WP:POVFORKs. No exceptions = no bitching. NikoSilver 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all anti... sentiment articles, except for anti-Semitism. We should not motivate people to elaborate articles about "how other nations were behaving as enemies to my nation" - this is the first step towards xenophobia. Or, if we keep them, there should be articles about Pro-Serbian Sentimant, Pro-Hungarian Sentiment, Pro-Romanian Sentiment, etc., too. --KIDB 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have Serbian nationalism and equivalent articles. I don't comprehend how you can apparently believe that by deleting articles such as Islamophobia but keeping anti-Semitism you think we would be making the world a better place. Regardless, your delete rationale lacks any basis in policy. Addhoc 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if there is an Islamophobia article, or not. I meant the European anti-Semitism. And yes, you are right, there is a disputed Serbian Nationalism article.
 * I think that all phobic articles about Central-European and Balkan ethnic groups should be deleted or be merged into other articles. I agree wih Francis Tyers, these articles cannot get any better. --KIDB 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this article presents real facts. But we must take care with the NPOV. --Mocu 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All per Fut.Perf. and KIDB. Whether the articles present real facts or not isn't the point.  It's that they're each and every one original research-laden blowthroughs of WP:SYN and WP:V.  When there are quoted sources (ones which fulfill WP:RS, that is) that discuss these alleged phobias, then we can have an article on them.  When all these articles are are POV-riddled essays stringing together purported incidents and claiming they represent capital-P Phobias, no.    RGTraynor  13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per excellent nomination and the Anti-Hellenism precedent; clear violation of WP:SYN. (ZOMG I had to break my wikibreak to participate here). I'd just like to refute the "keep but improve" arguments (with due respect to the fellow editors): this is the version of the article from the AfD 2 ; see also the closing admin's arguments at the Afd 2. The articles haven't improved for more than a year. Like I said on the AfD 4, (where you can also find history of my involvement with those articles), these articles cannot be improved. If anyone felt compelled, they had a plenty of time; the current version is almost the same as the one after AfD4. I hope it's finally ripe for deletion. Refactoring is an option (I suggested Foo-Bar relations, akin to Serbian-Albanian conflict), but the current organization is bound to produce sour grapes, OR and POV. Duja ► 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly refuse to treat all the anti- articles in the same way. If these articles are well-written, and well-sourced I am willing to support them. This is why in the previous Afd I was "neutral leaning towards weak keep". This article has a structure, treats the phenomenon examining its overall history, and indicates its notability. Of course, it is still a pure article, but it has sources, and it could be improved. I also do not understand why you have the references-tag in two separate sections. Guys, if the article has citing problems, put one tag at the top of the article. Why this useless repetition? And I repeat what I previously said: such articles become irrelevant, if they are not improved. For this reason (and not for the not-convincing "anti"arguments against the "anti-" articles), this time I strike the "leaning towards weak keep", and I vote just neutral. But, if somebody undertakes the task to improve the article, I will change my vote to "keep" and this stands for all the "anti" articles that are now in AfD.--Yannismarou 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Some of these articles aren't the best, but the subjects are worthy of articles. It is certainly true that almost every ethnic and national group worldwide has been disliked and discriminated against at one time or another, but that is part of history, and we shouldn't whitewash it. I think the title Serbophobia is poor; Anti-Serbian sentiment would be better. Brianyoumans 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Local incidents hyped by (tabloid) media and individuals covering their own xenophobia or another agenda by pointing fingers at others are not valid enough for an encyclopedia article. You could find individuals in every nation hating some other nation/culture/race/whatever, yet that should be covered enough in general articles about prejudice, racism and such. Unless there is some substantial evidence for anti-whatever sentiment, these types of articles should have no place in Wikipedia.--Svetovid 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. The title is POV flamebait and is never going to end up neutral in this format. IMHO, the reason all these conflicts have lasted so long is the way they are so interlinked. Every time something nasty happens, the perpetrators will try to justify their behaviour with historical accusations aganist the other side(s). A balanced article would have to deal with abuses and prejuduice across the entire Balkans and maybe even further (Turkish-Armenian or Hungarian-Slovak issues anyone?). Moyabrit 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up the article to meet standards. --Bolonium 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep like the others it can be sourced. Nobody doubts the phenomenon exists, and there will be newspaper articles at least. They'll; probably never be neutral articles., but they will cove what they need to. DGG 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Newspaper articles covering the entire phenomenon in a historical context? Or trivial mentions of "Foo made a Serbophobic comment", or "It is reported that the government of Bar is regulating the dimensions of hats worn on Wednesdays in an act clearly driven by Serbophobia" (The Croats only wear their hats on Fridays). Somehow I doubt that newspaper articles will be able to provide sufficiently enough information to make this any more than a list of complaints in the style of those mentioned previously. - Francis Tyers · 06:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:This article has now a pathetic image, because it is left without a main editor or maintainer for such a loooooong time. If somebody gets seriously occupied with the article, it could be definitely improved, and the material Google book offers could be helpful. There is an interesting philology about (the alleged?) "serbophobia", and that is why this article is not a waste. As it is now, if this article is deleted, Wikipedia loses nothing. But, if it gets improved, wikipedia loses knowledge.
 * And this is why I insist on the differential treatment of the "anti-" articles, according to their quality and according to the notability of their topic. They should not be grouped in the way they are! They are separate articles with a different degree of encyclopedic deficiencies each one. Not necessarily all the "anti-" articles have the same degree of notability or non-notability. Not necessarily all the anti-articles indicate and justify their notability in the same way. By the way, what is going to happen with Anti-Turkism, Anti-Russian sentiment, Sinophobia etc. Only the anti-articles concentrated on the Balkans are problematic? I don't find this argument convincing.--Yannismarou 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anti-Turkism has to go, as does Anti-Russian sentiment. Nearly all Anti-X articles are problematic, with the notable exceptions of Antisemitism and Homophobia, which have wide academic discourse outside of their respective countries/ethnic groups/etc. The reason I started with Balkan ones was I saw Anti-Macedonian sentiment, then Anti-Hellenism AfD and figured we had to start somewhere. That we have 'Anti-Turkism' but not 'Anti-Greekism' or 'Anti-Hellenism' is kind of ridiculous &mdash; they are both equally poor subjects for articles. - Francis Tyers · 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You just have to look at the quality of the prose, "The Greek Cypriots sometimes call Turks "vromoshillous" ("stinky/dirty dog")[5]" (completely cited, completely trivial). The section "Dictionaries presenting an Anti-Turkish bias" is pure WP:OR.... "Anti-Turkish examples in film and theatre" more WP:OR. - Francis Tyers · 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can find a "citation" for "Sometimes Turks are accused of yelling at their computers in cellars around the smaller villages of Northern Cyprus. Some Turks find this an example of extreme Turkophobia, saying that they never shout at computers, let alone in cellars." - Francis Tyers · 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are things that should stay in an article, and others that should go. There are things that can be cited in an article, and others that cannot, because they are mere propaganda. It depends, and what matters is the total account of flaws. Anyway ... Maybe you are right, and I am looking forward to your future initiatives on these articles; for me the most problematic (as far as I quickly went around and checked them) is Anti-Catalanism (worst than all the currently nominated "antis-" - well maybe there is some antagonism "in the mud" [in quality terms speaking always] with Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment), where there are no references except for a non-English external link. It is a pathetic essay of extremely poor quality.--Yannismarou 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * keep. Fifth nomination. Wow! Oh, really, no one hates Serbs? `'юзырь:mikka 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course some people hate some Serbs, what with their over-the-top ethnic nationalism, commitment to orthodoxy and hilarious historical revisionism, thats bound to get on someones nerves. However, some people also really like parrots, in fact, I have a reliable source that says some people like to do unimaginable things with parrots and caramel. Just because something exists, does not mean that there should be an article on it on Wikipedia. We aren't an unprincipled collection of information or facts, "Serbophobia was mentioned on the 3rd July in a local Novi Sad freesheet". Btw, no ph- for Albanophobia, but a ph- for Serbophobia? - Francis Tyers · 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This kind of articles constitutes 'original research' (picking up news by senzationalist media) and does not belong here. Specifically, Serbophobia text is one of the lousiest mentioned by the submitter. Pavel Vozenilek 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, however, only if all the other "anti-x" articles go as well (except established ones such as anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism).Osli73 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, article needs expansion, not deletion. The Discrimination sidebar template has many other similar articles. John Vandenberg 09:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is properly referenced and is a pretty big topic. It only needs expansion. Plus, pretty well known examples of Anti-Serb Sentiment (aka Serbophobia): the Bosnian War caused many Bosniaks and other Muslims from the former Yugoslavia (assuming) to begin to dislike Serbs, and the Albanians, don't get me started with that, best examples: Kosovo War and Albanian demonstrations in Kosovo in 1981. Plus, read this very well-written and detailed report on Serbian (and Montenegrin) discrimination in Kosovo by Kosovar Albanians: "The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo" Part III, Demographic Studies Volume III, by Ruža Petrović and Marina Blagojević of SANU, Department of Social Studies --CrnaGora 02:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this is an important topic, and the article is well referenced. AlexanderPar 08:57, 10 June 2007 (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.