Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment

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 procedurally closed as a disruptive nomination. This deletion nomination consists mostly of political soapboxing. It is not supported by any editor in good standing. The nominator has been warned about WP:ARBMAC#Standard discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose we delete this appalling article to keep up the good work of this encyclopedia following the success of our nuking of Pesecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. Basicly, this article is told purely from a serb perspective and makes the nation out to be like Jews and anti-Semitism which is totally different. The examples on the article violate a great many policies such as WP:CFORK, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. A lot of the page is the regular Serb propaganda which forever looms when such article is created. The fact is that the amount of Serbs to have been victims of crimes is small compared to those to have been victims at their hands in the wars they have started both in recent history and further back before World War 1.

Let's get the ball rolling.

Strong delete - per the facts given on the proposal. Keithstanton (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most definitely a propaganda/demagogy page, no reliable sources, spels false facts. 82.33.230.34 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithstanton (talk · contribs) really isn't the right person to file this AfD because of their recent history of flamewars on related topics. There's a fairly long history to this article and it needs to be analyzed in a much less knee-jerk fashion. I urge any admins watching to prevent this discussion from devolving into another talking point / voting festival, even at the cost of a speedy keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is discrimination. I am free to edit, have not been blocked indeffo and I have made a full and accurate analysis of an article which I feel does not meet to Wikipedia standards of criteria to continue. Why don't you let the other neutral editors such as Bobrayner and Dolescum have their say first. Keithstanton (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really not the way to begin an AfD. I started the AfD you mentioned based on policy and logic and those were responsible for the result - a result against votestacking I might say so as the DRV solidly confirmed. It'd be better to retract your nomination, read some more AfDs including the one I started, go through the policies and a week later you can restart it as a proper AfD.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. severe violations of WP policies, also violates WP:SOAPBOX in many ways, best flush the article. Hope meets success (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Hope meets success (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Anti-Serb sentiment does have deep problems, and they are quite similar to the problems Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo had. However, following the epic drama at that AfD and Deletion review, I fear this AfD will be a bumpy ride... and the last thing we need in the Balkans is more sockpuppetry. bobrayner (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am bothered by the motivation behind this AFD. The nominator is very clear in stating that political viewpoints--rather than the improvement of WP--are the motivation behind this AFD. Perhaps next time try not to sell the AFD with so much political rhetoric. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I second entirely what Uncle Milty said above - the only reason offered for deletion is blatantly political, doesn't even pretend to be neutral, and is formulated 100% as an "argument by precedent" which is not a logical argument, but one used when the reasons pertinent to THIS case are too weak to stand on their own. If you present a LOGICAL argument why "Anti-Serb sentiment" can never be an encyclopedic topic (while "anti-just about anyone else sentiment" articles on the other hand seem to be just fine) that doesn't involve your personal biases, I will change my vote. As it is, this AfD ought to be brought to higher attention, as it is devoid of logical arguments and based entirely on emotional ones. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Again, national struggle to hide everything that WEDONTLIKE. Keep this sourced and useful article per Til Eulenspiegel and Uncle Milty. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Nominator's been canvassing asking for "delete" votes from people he thinks will oppose the article. He even canvassed me because I was the one who "nuked" the persecution article! This discussion can't be construed to represent community consensus and should thus be shut down until/unless someone decides to reopen it in a neutral manner. Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Nyttend, and warn the nominator.--В и к и T 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Nyttend. This is a highly problematic article which I have attempted to clean up and focus in the past, and whilst an AfD may well be appropriate, the approach of the nominator is highly inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article itself is problematic, the topic is notable and quite real to the individuals who experience it. Imagine nominating the article on anti-Semitism for deletion [I am in no way comparing anti-Serb sentiment to anti-Semitism, but they are both forms of discrimination.) 23 editor (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2013 (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.