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. AFD is not a vote. If you're arguing to keep something, you have to say why - you can't just go "keep" or "keep, it exists". Even discounting those "votes", it is impossible to determine a consensus to do anything here. Nonetheless, the article has POV problems, and these need to be dealt with as soon as possible, or the article may be renominated. --Coredesat 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is surrounded by a quite lot of wikidrama. Before stating the reasons for deletion, let me inform the audience of its history:

• 1st nomination: likely bad-faith nom, lots of "bad-faith nom!", "WP:ILIKEIT", "there are similar articles around" arguments. Kept.
• Second nom, good faith one by Mel Etitis, closed as no consensus. Please read the lengthy closure by HappyCamper. Chief points were that the term exists as a neologism and that the article should be constrained to usage of the term.
• Third nom, speedy kept as bad-faith one.
• Followed by a lots of talk page spamming by User:Bosniak why this article exists and his Bosniakophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted, it was deleted by myself per WP:IAR on Dec 13, along with Anti-Croatian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anti-Bosniak sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), similar ethnic feud soapboxes (Croatian one was tad better, admittedly). I reported the deletion to the community at WP:AN/I, here, and it was widely endorsed.
• It was undeleted on Dec 26/27 after a 6-hour long DRV.

So, here we are at the 4th nom: contrary to the conclusions in lengthy closure by HappyCamper, in the meantime the article became a soapbox for enumerating all instances of hatred and crimes towards Serbs throughout the history. Actually, it's not a problem of sourcing (it's not too difficult to prove the existence of most of stated instances of crimes): the article tries (and certainly would continue, if the future permits) to establish the common link between all crimes commited against an ethnic group — that link, inferred or spelled out, is the hint to the eternal hate of Our Evil Neighbours against Poor Us.

...And, yes, per WP:ILIKEIT, existence of other similar articles is not a reason to keep this one. (And I promise I'll work on their demise too)

Duja► 15:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is a neologism that hasn't reached widespread usage. Only 3K hits on google. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and there can't be one of these for each [insert-ethnic-group]-phobia except in extraordinary cases of very widespread adoption of the term. Existance of similar pages isn't a justification of this existance of this one (delete them as well). Tarinth 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic seems to be worth writing about, even if the word used for it is a neologism. Anyway "xxxx-ophobia" is a well-known way of saying "dislike of xxxx". Anthony Appleyard 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Anti-Serbism. The only problem I see with this article is the title. Most of the rest is no different than Antisemitism. --- RockMFR 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The topic is notable enough and the article is well-sourced. Although the title might not be used that frequently, the subject it refers to a well-known topic. I wouldn't have anything against moving it to Anti-Serbian Discrimination or something of the sort, though I think Serbophobia is fine. TSO1D 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. the nomination is misguided: the nominator ironically says the eternal hate of Our Evil Neighbours against Poor Us. He confuses two issues: whether the "eternal hate" exists with whether "some think that the ethernal hate exists". For starters, I would suggest him to re-read the article "conspiracy theory". `'mikka 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thanks. And I maintain that this article, along with several similar ones, is a feeding ground of conspiracy theories rather than an objective overview of peer-reviewed sociological studies (and they can't become good, because none of those became good, except possibly widely-understood phenomena such as Antisemitism and Anti-Americanism). Duja► 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If there are balance/NPOV problems with the article or if it needs more of an academic/historical perspective, this should be corrected through cleanup not outright deletion. There is evidence that, besides any historical incidents "anti-Serbism", the specific term of "Serbophobia" is at least encyclopedically notable for being a key term in the historical discourse of Serbian nationalism as used by Serbian nationalists themselves both during the 1990s wars in the Former Yugoslavia (and since) and as part of the internal tensions of Yugoslavia when it still existed as a functioning Communist state. Non-trivial examples of its use can be found at the level of governmental relations, academic institutions, party politics and international relations in recent decades. (I don't know what the phrase is in Serbo-Croat, but "Serbo-Croat" is used by reliable direct English translation sources). The term then is important for understanding the history of late 20th century Serbian nationalism. (There was also an inaccessible references from google books search that on the face of the listed search description suggested the term may have been around during the beginning of the First World War)

Examples of late 20th century significant use:

• 1986 controversy seen as a key moment in rise of Serbian nationalist movement when the Serbian Academy of the Arts and Sciences issued what has been described as a "extraordinary memorandum" publicly accusing the Yugoslav central government - and the then national Constitution - of "Serbophobia" and urging Serbs to "pursue their national

interests"[1][2][3]

• 1988 rise of tensions between regional politicians of Yugoslavia which would eventually led to the breakup of Yugoslavia - Excerpt (Factiva) from "Serbia Presses Its Bid to Control Region Demands Kosovo Leaders Be Removed From National Politburo"[4], 12 October 1988, Los Angeles Times (Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1988 All Rights Reserved)

The other ethnic groups in Yugoslavia have reacted cautiously to the Serbian campaign, but they began to speak out more openly last week when the Milosevic group attempted to force the resignation of government and party officials in the southern republic of Montenegro.

The Montenegrin officials stood firm, and the Slovenian government issued a strong statement of support.

...

The Serbian Central Committee fired back Tuesday, accusing the Slovenians of "Serbophobia."

The exchange spotlighted what may be the limit to the Milosevic drive-opposition from the other republics to any Serbian push for authority beyond its own boundaries. Along with the Slovenians, the Croatians will almost certainly put up stiff resistance to any increase in Milosevic's authority.

• 1996 example of prominence of "Serbophobia" concept in Bosnian Serb political discourse/attitude to international relations at highest level of government. Excerpt (Factiva)from Bosnian Serb TV Q&A interview with Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic:

13 December 1996, BBC Monitoring Service: Central Europe & Balkans (c) 1996 The British Broadcasting Corporation

Source: Bosnian Serb television, Pale, in Serbo-Croat 1910 gmt 10 Dec 96

[Q] Since we are discussing international influences, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the newly-appointed US officials, primarily the new secretary of state and the head of the CIA. Can you comment on their appointments and their attitude towards the Serb Republic?

[A] Well, the whole set of officials has changed. It has always been said that there is an anti-Serb group, an extremely anti-Serb group, surrounding President Clinton, and another group which - I do not want to say it supports our side - mitigates the Serbophobia of the former. I cannot say now, I cannot assess these people, but even though some of them can be put into the group of Serbophobes - you know more or less whom I mean - it does not mean that things will function in this way with the new team.

• Example of continued use in mainstream political discourse in Montenegro. Excerpt (Factiva) from "Party official accuses Montenegrin 'regime' of apartheid against Serbs", Montenegrin Mina news agency:

BBC Monitoring European; (c) 2005 The British Broadcasting Corporation.

Excerpt from report by Montenegrin Mina news agency

Podgorica, 9 January: Montenegro cannot seriously claim to be a tolerant country because its government is carrying out a policy of apartheid against the Serbs who make up 32 per cent of the overall population in Montenegro, Budimir Aleksic, a senior official of the Serb People's Party [SNS], said today.

...

He went on to say that the incumbent Montenegrin regime was imposing on its citizens xenophobia and nationalism as a philosophy of life.

"Montenegrin everyday life cannot be imagined without the public display of various forms of Montenegrin chauvinism and Serbophobia through which the present government is aspiring to create the so-called new Montenegrin," Aleksic said.

• Also see multiple non-trivial refs in books on Google Books[5] and Amazon[6].

Bwithh 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You give an excellent overview (which should become a part of the article). If you intend to write about this topic, just note that Serbian Academy of the Arts and Sciences never issued the memorandum. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - A neologism with no real notability in the English language (as the article itself admits); article thus seems to exist for the sole purpose of airing ethnic grievances. - Merzbow 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English language Wikipedia (the default global wikipedia) does not necessarily exclude phrases that do not have significant cultural/historical /political notability in the English language e.g. Algérie française, Kinder, Küche, Kirche, ¡Ya basta!. Bwithh 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any of those references Bwithh produces being 'non-trivial references' - simply mentioning the word is not the same as a legitimate source about the term and its connotations. When the topic is as loaded with POV warriors on both sides, all we can do is be stringent in requiring decent references and do our best to maintain a neutral perspective, stating the facts and not attempting to draw any form of conclusion. Unfortunately, none of the references that are provided are anything other than uses of the term, and the extrapolation of these, as well as being used to push nationalistic propaganda (and the other 'side' to this are no better), is tantamount to original research as well as being a hopeless and counterproductive POV fest. Proto::► 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My "non-trivial" references I excerpted above were intended to highlight the use of the term in mainstream Balkan politics (clearly the memorandum by the Serbian Academy is a non-trivial and publicized political document. In the Amazon and Google booksearch links I cited, there are academic history books which use this term too. If you want a book which directly addresses the term at some length written by people outside the former Yugoslav discourse, there's this which is written by this guy. Bwithh 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent catch, and a good book, on the first sight. Now, if we had an article akin or summarizing the Macdonald's book, which goes into the great detail of the conflict and its history, causes, related myths, propaganda, etc. I'd be perfectly happy. But that's not what we have, and we're very far from that. Like I said on AN/I, having a "Serbo-Croatian relations", "Serbo-Bosniak relations" or like could be a good thing potentially, as it would enable to contextualize the phobias and give an outline of thoughts and actions of both sides in proper historic contexts. What we have here, though, are lists of misdeeds without context, hinting at presupposed phobias and hatred by the neighbors as the reason for the conflict. Duja► 13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...to underline my point, let me quote a passage from the page 3 of the book: Without a clear view of Serbian and Croatian arguments, half the debate is missing. Duja► 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to be a reference to proposed "Serbian-Croatian relations" article, however serbophobia isn't expressed only by Croats. (I don't think that the book is very good BTW.) Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Anti-Serbism, per RockMFR. Qqqqqq 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of neologisms that a couple of people use. BigDT 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article, the word has been in use for about a hundred years, and the sentiment certainly exists even longer. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of these "anti-XXX" articles are unavoidably POV and unencyclopedic. Any important info can be added to other articles. Khoikhoi 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which other articles would you add important info from this article to? Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as much as I believe that most things should be kept and cleaned-up on the grounds of NPOV, this isn't one of them. Sorry. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV/troll magnet, non-notable neologism, little assertion of notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Leaning towards Weak Keep - Neologism or not "serbophobia" is a notable term, even outside Serbia. Having lived very closely from Greece (Greek medias were very interested in these events; sometimes in a pro-Serbian POV way) the tense days of the Bosnian War and of the NATO air strikes in Kosovo, I do know that this term was notable in my country. So, the argument of not-notability is not convincing for me. Now, the POV and edit-wars concerns are important. But are these reasons strong enough in order to delete a notable article which has been in Wikipedia for more than one year and has survived three (or four?) previous nominations? I'm not sure. My experience in Wikipedia has taught me that we should try to resolve POV and edit conflicts, and not just delete notable articles, when such problems appear. Tag the article as POV if necessary! On the other side, maybe Eusebeus has understood better than anyone here the essence of this article's problems. He had said in a previous nomination and I quote: "The attempt to accommodate NPOV and OR objections has stripped it of any value and the content has moved from the encyclopedic to the ridiculous. This is choir-preaching and it seems to me that no one stumbling across this would be able to make much sense if it one way or the other. Articles that become subject to such disputes usually make themselves irrelevant in this way". As it is now the article tends indeed to become irrelevant, and, therefore, deletion will soon be indifferent.--Yannismarou 12:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is an immense number of possible phobias and every ethnic or other group has its own "phobia", mostly in sporadic use (notable exception being the antisemitism and perhaps a few others). But the description of these phobias in Wikipedia is often very subjective and prone to WP:OR. Therefore I think that these and similar articles should be deleted until they are backed by two or three academic books writen by independent researchers (i.e. not Serbians or Croatians in this case).--Ioannes Pragensis 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To those who think the article should be deleted, I hope to see AfDs and the same support for the majority of articles in the List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms / Category:Anti-national sentiment as your reasons given here will apply to all these articles as well (because of this I don't think WP:ILIKEIT applies). If we do list all those articles for AfD you will get a much broader range Wikipedians participating in this discussion, and a better way to determine a true consensus on this subject. // Laughing Man 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In my (bitter) experience, such global polls seldom come out well; you get too many "global" keep votes objecting to the procedure, objecting to the bad weather, then piling on "keep per all above" etc; it gets real messy. While I don't have a global strategy at the moment, a better approach could be to establish few precedents, formulate a kind of guideline on the basis of that, then apply the principle everywhere it's applicable. Or at least I hope so. Duja► 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In other words, such global polls seldom come out the way you want them to. Well that's not their general idea. I personally don't like precedents as a way of establishing concensus. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the fact that this article is being nominated for a fourth time (!) should be enough to keep it. However, this term is at least twenty years old, if we ignore instances of its use way before the 80s, by people including the famous Croatian man of letters, Miroslav Krleža. It has been used in many languages, and examples of its use are linked to in the article, so it is notable. That the term actually exists further demonstrates that it is notable compared to other similarly-titled article, which are mostly descriptive and do not exist outside Wikipedia. If these anti- articles are the problem, as some claim, then lets have a vote to delete them all, instead of singling this article out FOUR TIMES. It reeks of Serbophobia, ironically. If half the energy invested in showing how the article is biased, poorly written etc had been invested in improving it, it would be one of the better Wiki articles today. --Еstavisti 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, Anti-Bosniak sentiment and Anti-Croatian sentiment were deleted by myself and undeleted by someone else during the course of this AfD. While the notability of the term is (kinda) established, the article did not follow the recommendations given at the 2nd AfD. During the course of this AfD, SmithBlue (talk · contribs) did some cleanup and removal of OR, but I'm simply afraid that it will return. If the entire wikidrama I started would result in keep and rewrite all, I'd be , um, kind of content, but I'd much more prefer refactoring of those topics into "Foo-Barian conflict/relations" that would give historical context and views on both sides of the conflict; see Serbian-Albanian conflict as an example of a fairly NPOV (though fairly unsourced) article. See also Fut. Perf's thoughts on the matter here Duja► 09:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the other Yugos, but to the list of links I linked to.--Еstavisti 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fairly NPOV? The borders chosen for the new state did not correspond to the ethnic composition of the region, leaving several million Albanians outside Albania - even today there no several millions of Albanians outside Albania, so this not only is POV but is completely factually inaccurate. And that one is among the several first sentences in the article (stopped reading after it). Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Serbophobia is an existing term, and an existing sentiment. Maybe the text needs improvement, but the whole idea of the article is legitimate, hence it shouldn't be deleted.Velimir85 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Djus 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete this article is nothing more than WP:OR and its deletion was almost unanimously supported by the board when the question was brought to the WP:AN/I.--Aldux 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This Afd is not about whether the Serbs are victims or not. The question is whether Serbophobia is a term or concept in use, and it appears to be so, so the article is as valid as one on antiSemitism. Edison 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Anti-Serbism, per RockMFR, with a redirect from Serbophobia. Ford MF 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to Anti-Serbism. I'm not convinced one way or the other which name should be used. But the article should still exist in some form. Either "anti-X" articles (with sufficient sources, of course) are allowed, or they're not. Quack 688 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could write hundreds of lines justifying my vote (like pontiting that many, many articles related to Yugoslav Wars in the English edition of Wikipedia have recently been contaminated with POVs — and, sometimes, clear disinformation — that try to distort History presenting Serbian ultranationalists/religious zealots in general and Milosevic and his allies in particular as mainly defensive victims of the Muslim-Ustasha-Western conspiration and aggression, not the other way round), but all I can say on this matter is that, differently from well-based articles like Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism, I agree with Duja that the Serbophobia article is being used as an ethnic-religious hate soapbox with highly disputable real encyclopedic value, to say at least. Well, the article could be “reformed” as a all-new "Anti-Serbism" entry, but I do have clear doubts that it would be valuable.--MaGioZal 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't get why some people are advocating a move to Anti-Serbism, which gets only 175 non-Wikipedia google hits. It is a neologism, unlike Serbophobia which has been used for decades, and incidentally, comes up 24 separate times in the limited amount of scholarly material indexed by Google Scholar. For comparison's sake, Russophobia comes up 340 times, relatively less givern Russia's vast influence and population. So, anyone planning to delete Russophobia? --Еstavisti 13:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect from serbophobia would I think be sufficient in this case. The reason for the move would be to put the article on arguably more neutral and less loaded territory, and give it a more encyclopedia title, instead of leaving it with a fairly ugly neologism. I think a consonant example is the article for islamophobia--which is strictly about the neologism itself (if serbophobia were so amended, I'd be fine with that--and then then sister article for anti-Arabism, which discusses the conceptual prejudice against Arabs contained within the neologism islamophobia. Ford MF 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not bothered to read that it has been used for many decades? How can a word that has been used for many decades be a neologism (a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created)? Also, not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims...--Еstavisti 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Anti-Serbism" is very rarely used, note however that the adjective "anti-Serbian" is commonly used, and we should always use nouns for article names. So, this is the reasoning behind the move. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have practically written books on this website as to why the term is bogus. Live Forever 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. It's been shown that the term is in use and has been used for many decades. It is also present in scholarly literature. So why is it "bogus"? Also, is Anti-Bosniak sentiment also bogus? If not, why not?--Еstavisti 01:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no; it's been in use sporadically for a little over two decades, and even then almost exclusively in a political context by Serb nationalists. The only "scholarly lliterature" mentioning the term refutes its existence, so I don't see what point you're trying to make there. Live Forever 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you smoking that makes you think Miroslav Krleža, the famous Croatian man of letters, is a "Serbian nationalist"? I could do with some of it :) --Еstavisti 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that and, as usual, you're missing the point. Krleža used the word a few times, but never in the sense of some wide-spread and established phobia as you're trying to portray here. The "Serbophobia" Krleža talked of (or rather, "mentioned") could be applied to any nation; a Croatian intellectual today in 2006 could just as easily combine "Bosniaks" and "phobia" to create "Bosniakophobia." He could then even use the word in some interview, but this would hardly make it a subject of encyclopedic value. If you still disagree, could you please provide examples of other Croatian intellectuals using Serbophobia during this time period? I mean, surely your mention of Krleža is simply one part of a complex argument grounded on an impressive knowledge of early Yugoslav political circles - it's not as if you simply took the information from Mir Harven and then tried to twist it to suit your goals. Live Forever 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the one missing the point. We're not discussing the quality of the article, but whether it should be deleted. You said that the term is "almost exclusively in a political context by Serb nationalists" for "little over two decades" before admitting that Krleža (who as a Croat can hardly be considered a Serb nationalist) used it many decades before that. I didn't get this information from "Mir Harven" but from the very article you're so anxious to have deleted. If you had bothered to read the article, you wouldn't have asked me for other examples of Croatian intellectuals using the term either, because one is given - Antun Gustav Matoš. Also, you assume bad faith, accusing me of trying to "twist [information] to suit your goals". Really, you have no arguments... --Еstavisti 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, the article should be deleted. 2) Krleza's occasional (i.e. sparse) mention of "Serbophobia" does not make it a term of encyclopedic value, and either way it is quite separate from the far more relevant (but equally worthless) definition of "Serbophobia" - the one invented in the 80s and the one that, after several months of existence, this article proves to consistently return to. 3) I have followed the article. In fact, apparently far closer (or more scrutinizingly) than you have, for I know that the brief mention of Krleža and Matoš was brought up by Mir Harven in discussion. If it wasn't for him, you wouldn't even have this pathetic excuse to fall back on; you'd simply resort to the same recycled greater Serbian garbage from earlier. 4.) I had read the article and I was just waiting for you to bring up Matoš. Nonetheless, I asked you for more than "one given" example, because I just don't believe that two brief mentions of a (then) utter neologism make it encyclopedic or give the later propaganda term some sort of historical foundation. 5) The good faith guideline does not require me to continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Live Forever 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Unfortunately, those are books of fairy tales. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --SasaStefanovic • 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Krytan 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Also delete "Anti-Croatian sentiment" and"Anti-Bosniak sentiment", as all three are POV/troll magnets, and have little assertion of their notability. If they are to be kept, I'd have to agree with what Yannismarou said on the Administrators noticeboard, that all three anti-(Croat, Bosniak, Serb) articles should be merged into one comprehensive article, as it may limit the amount of POV/edit wars. —KingIvan 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject. Everyking 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the subject exists. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I explained reasons in in my comments above. To sum it up: notability of the sentiment and the word used to describe it seem fairly well established and that is not disputed by the nomination anyway. What is disputed, and what was the point of the HappyCamper's closure, is that "The article itself...is little more than a focus for edit warring...". I don't think that that should be reason for deletion of any article, ever. If edit warring and POV pushing is a problem, preventing edit warring and POV pushing is the solution, not deleting articles so that people would have nowhere to edit war. Heck, we could probably delete the article on Bush for the same reason. People who think that other articles would be a better solution should maybe try to write those other articles first and see how that comes out. Nikola 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Maybe rename if this name is not correct, but don't delete forever. --Djordjes (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Bwithh // Laughing Man 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Merzbow, "A neologism with no real notability in the English language (as the article itself admits); article thus seems to exist for the sole purpose of airing ethnic grievances." Let 'em take their campaign of "poor poor pitiful me" elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we should delete Anti-Semitism, right? Let the Jews take their campaign of "poor poor pitiful me" elsewhere.--Еstavisti 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in my opinion, you simply cannot compare the well-based history of Anti-semitism to the much more recent and somehow dubious term (and theories about) Serbophobia. You can say what you want, but the fact is that Auschwitz was a tragedy much more bigger to the Jews than Jasenovac was to the Orthodox Yugoslavs. Besides, I ask myself how many people do believe in Serbophobia outside Serbia? Sometimes it’s seems to be more a case of Serbian ultra-nationalist sense of exceptionalism and auto-victimization.--MaGioZal 11:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? The word has been used for decades, by Croats as well as Serbs. Try reading the other comments on the page. It has also been used by Western commentators:

Thomas Friedman (who himself has quite a little aversion towards "the Serbs") used the word Serbophobia in the New York Times [7]:

"But then the German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, acting on the long love affair between Germany and Croatia (and traditional German Serbophobia), told the E.C. that Germany would recognize Croatia by Christmas 1991 -- no matter what." (TimesSelect membership required to read the article.)

Furthermore, it's not a question of "belief", but sources - and there are many sources showing that the term has been relatively widely used for decades. Finally, your casual dismissal of a death camp for Serbs (whom you futher insult by only deigning to call them "Orthodox Yugoslavs"), is just the kind of comment that has no place in any civilised discussion. You don't need to care yourself, but I would appreciate some respect for the dead.--Еstavisti 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dismissal of a death camp? No way, I am no Holocaust denier. I didn’t claim that Jasenovac did not exist nor people haven’t been killed there, I am just pointing out to well-agreed facts: fewer people were killed in Jasenovac than in Auschwitz, and most of Serbians are Yugoslav Orthodox people. No offence on that.--MaGioZal 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am just wondering here what do you meant by saying that “You don't need to care yourself”.--MaGioZal 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaGioZal your comments are pathetic and extremely offensive, comparing the number of people killed in concentration camps and saying one means more than another. You're disgusting. // Laughing Man 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I don't care what you think in private, just try to keep your ignorant views to yourself. I can assure you that to those killed and their relatives, Jasenovac was just as great a tragedy as Auschwitz, or any other death camp, and your attempted relativisation is way out of line.--Еstavisti 04:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep-survived three previous afds-this term is broadly used in academic circles, and a fourth afd smacks of bad faith. Chris 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for 3 months then review; Article may need retitling and does have problems but to put it in the "too hard" basket would be to miss an opportunity to find a way to make a very difficult subject work. SmithBlue 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Serbophobia realy exist, so how you can delete this article Jovanvb 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Serbophobia is a historical fact.--Marko M 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Serbophobia exist. bonzo 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a POV magnet that has not and probably cannot be upgraded to meet encyclopedic standards. Eluchil404 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't know what to vote; delete it - it'll return; keep it - it'll draw the "need" to create parallel articles for nations that have had conflicts with the Serb nation recently. --PaxEquilibrium 17:54, 1 January 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.