Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

From the opening sentence onwards, this page appears to be little more than a (very badly written) political essay masquerading as an encyclopedia article. There may be a valid article that could be written about the role of the UK in the Yugoslav wars, but this page is tbh beyond redemption. Yes, it has sources, and sets out some facts seemingly based on those sources, but 90% of the content is a superstructure of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. Assertions are made for example about the "active pro-Serbian policy" of the UK, "the real face" of British politics, Malcolm Rifkind having "Serbophile feelings", "bare fact[s]" etc etc. Arguably these could be weeded out through judicious editing, but I'm not sure what would be left, and in any event the near blanking of articles is of course discouraged. Nickhh (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in accordance with nomination. Buckshot06(prof) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep- the sentences from the article might be essayistic (which can be easily fixed) but they are not my statements but from the sources. The sources are (I repeat it 5th time!!!) -books by Brittish historian (Brendan Simms), former Brittish soldiers, brittish parliament transcripts (Hansard) etc. ... all collected in 1 article together.There might be some conclusions but they are made by the authors (sources!)-not me--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone who actually reads through the article would accept that the conclusions and assertions in it are sourced (and could you explain for example exactly where and when Hansard might be drawing "conclusions" about anything at all?) What the page does is report one or two things the British did or didn't do, and report one or two quotes, and then construct a thesis by making apparent assumptions in its narrative voice about some supposedly over-arching "pro-Serbian" policy. And even if the conclusions that are being drawn were taken from a reliable source, they remain unattributed; nor is there any attempt to balance them with arguments from sources which might take a different view. I don't wish to be rude, but you do really need to have a look at what Wikipedia is meant to be, and read pretty much every policy and guideline relating to reliable sourcing, original research, neutrality and political advocacy. The poor quality of the writing and the overall POV nature of the page make editing it to improve it pretty much a lost cause, such that outright deletion remains the only option unless this sort of material gets to sit around for years left as it is.--Nickhh (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - This article has huge POV problems and is very very badly written, it appears some is being translated which can lead to complete inaccurate statements. Also an entire article on the UK during the Yugoslav wars is simply not needed when there are articles covering the NATO / UN operations there and the war in general. I fail to see why people need details like..
 * "According to the country politics all troops of British soldiers that were sent to field operations had 4-days briefing (eduction). That briefing was about the war itself, as well as about the history of the region"

or..
 * "British politics during Croatian war of independence was in best case controversial, but its real face will be shown during war in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

I think there is a clear political agenda behind this article, we have seen often the conflicts from this region spreading to other articles, this is one of those cases. Also just for comparison sake, this was a minor conflict for the United Kingdom, compare that to the war in Iraq where Britain at one stage had around 40,000 troops deployed, which is on a totally different scale to our involvement in the Yugoslav wars, and yet there doesnt appear to be a specific article on the UK during the Iraq war(only one on the military operation itself), so why is one needed for this? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) *Delete, POV, biased, poor language. FenderMag (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly a POV essay, and I doubt there's much to be salvaged; although many of the sources are notable and reliable, they have been used selectively in order to draw the conclusion that the UK government took a certain policy. The article isn't neutral and has a distinct POV, makes huge assumptions, and needs to go. Skinny87 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons stated above and more the "article" is a complete POV mess full of unsourced opinion and original research. I don't see how anybody could pick this apart to form a decent article even if one is possible, they would be better off starting from scratch. Guest9999 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  —GregorB (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to me that the article was not intended to merely describe the subject, but rather to construct an indictment against the UK politics during Yugoslav Wars by simply compiling everything that could be used for that purpose. That's not only WP:POV, that's also WP:SYNTH, even if every individual fact is true. This is not incidental, and is therefore virtually impossible to "fix". GregorB (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you (or anybody else) considers this article to be indictment you are free to write the defense.Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but this would make the article into a debate, which is barely any better, and is not how this is supposed to work. GregorB (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * not a debate! you can just offer another opinion that contradicts to the ones given by me and my sources.All the existing evidence support the story about active pro-Serbian policy  during Yugoslav warsAñtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we have a couple of sourced facts - for example that the UK did not bomb Serbian forces (at least in the early stage of the wars), and that it backed the arms embargo against all sides to the conflict. Then, out of nowhere, we have the very bold assertion - which is entirely unsupported, but which permeates the entire article - that the UK had "an active pro-Serbian policy". Again, Wikipedia is not the place for you or anyone else to conduct original research, nor is it some kind of online court where opposing random theories - or in your own words "stories" - are put to the test via an "indictment" and a "defence". --Nickhh (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nickhh PRODUCER (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Just for the record-couplee questions if you can answer them ( if you think than article is just (my) POV ):
 * Do you deny any of the statements cited?-give counter-proofs
 * Can you find any sources whichj contradict to the statements?

The article style might be essay (which can be fixed) but the facts are beyond the issue. I think it is more important the content (facts) rather than form.--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Best example is comparison to British (more than obvious) pro-German politics during Sudeti crisis--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Try crafting an appropriate, short addition to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom in your userspace then for later addition. Buckshot06(prof) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (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.