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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Serbophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Serbophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)[reply]

Note: Other articles in this deletion series:

And per this search. --R O A M A T A A | msg  18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 — they are both equally poor subjects for articles. - Francis Tyers · 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
More