Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP mikka (t) 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism

  • STRONG DELETE! This article contains only POV's. It is absolutely wrong. No need to keep it in an encyclopedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.66.2 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep; It clearly states antipolonism is a term to describe hostility towards Poles. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article about it. If it contains POV then fix it. There's enough NPOV there to keep it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, obviously significant. Ugly malformed nomination too (since fixed). --Last Malthusian 11:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to a simple keep because the article does have issues, I initially assumed the nomination was in bad faith from an editor who did not like the way the article was going: however, I do not believe that they are sufficient to just give up on editing the article to standard and throw the whole thing in the wastebin. -- Last Malthusian 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This will, of course, get voted down and the article will return to the messy, un-working status quo. I'm voting delete because I feel the POV is systemic enough that this needs to be scrapped and replaced with a better descriptor and NPOV content. From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language...To the extent that people believe that Poles, Polonia and Poland continue to be treated as objects of ridicule, discrimination and exploitation, "anti-Polonism" and the kindred term "Polonophobia" may enter more widespread use." Think through the logic of this for a moment. It's a senseless justification for what is effectively a neologism. Marskell 11:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Any valid content can go elsewhere, or already has; the title is inherently POV; and the term is not standard. --rob 12:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)update added: I just learned now, that there was a prior Keep vote. I'll respect precident and abstain. --rob 13:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This was already voted on.The result was keep. " From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language.." Why not following sentence ? . It has, however, appeared in some scholarly works ([1])and is listed as subject in Polish National Library index[2] Btw your changes are wrong since it is in the dictionary in Polish National Library.You removed that sentence. Also they are scholary works on the issue:

  1. Eduard v. Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen" : Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus im Kaiserreich / Helmut Neubach. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Gotthold Rhode. Stiftung Martin-Opitz-Bibliothek. [Hrsg.: Kommission für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Polen e.V.]
  2. Koch, Angela, Ph.D. Student Institut für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany * The Relationship of Antipolonism and Sexism in German History (1870-1933/45)
  3. Marike Werner: Welches Geschlecht hat die Nation? Antifeminismus und Antipolonismus in deutschen Romanen nach 1918, in Zwischen Kriegen, Nationen, Nationalismen und Geschlechterverhältnisse in Mittel- und Osteuropa 1918-1939, hrsg. von Johanna Gehmacher, Elizabeth Harvey und Sophia Kemlein,Einzelveröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau, Band 7 ISBN 3-929759-48-9

--Molobo 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) As you can see the word exists in Polish dictionary of Polish National Library as subject.It also exists in scientific works. --Molobo 13:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I didn't list the full paragraph for brevity's sake; it's a nay (no mention in English dict's) and a yay (one mention National Library) anyhow.
  • There is redundancy with the previous VfD—I didn't nominate here, incidentally—but that isn't going to cause me to change my vote. One keep result yes, but also nine months worth of talk to the effect "something must be done about this page." Any serious attempt to do something gets hijacked by a handful of editors pushing a POV. And yes, it is POV. We should rename it Germans murdering Poles for accuracy's sake. Marskell 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please you are trying for a second time to delete this using arguments "this is a bullshit". You are neither serious or credible. --Molobo 17:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • keep per prev vfd. mikka (t) 18:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous deletion debate. Halibutt 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article appears to have chronic problems that those involved are struggling to fix. That is not a reason for deletion, however. The editors involved should each take a jab of some sedative before posting anything to the article, its talk page or this AfD. And they should not be using deletion processes to try to enforce NPOV. N is for "neutral", not "no". -Splashtalk 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Splash. Vizjim 19:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it was already voted Radomil talk 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep although the article is in need of the Wikipedia community attention. Alx-pl D 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep make with the hammer and tongues. Alf melmac 20:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepGeni 21:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the first VfD. Appleseed 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if the name isn't optimal, the topic is encyclopedic and the article will be evolving. A less uncommon name, such as Hostility toward Poles may be worth to consider but this belongs to WP:RM debate and not VfD. So, keep. --Irpen 00:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - obviously. Space Cadet 12:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • strong delete! This article is not neutral. No need to keep it in an encyclopedia, because an encyclopedia HAS TO BE NEUTRAL! Micha
  • If you want your vote to be counted, you might want to consider signing it. Groeck 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is the most extreme POV I have seen at Wikipedia. Not sure if it can be fixed. However, this is not a reason for deletion, as wrong as its content may be. Groeck 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • strong delete! Dear Groeck, of course this is a reason for deletion! A encyclopedia HAS TO BE NEUTRAL! Anja.
  • Keep. The article just survived a VFD. However, while there are some valuable informations, the article is in serious need of NEUTRAL editors. Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete! Roksana.

" Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed." If you would read the article you would know that the word is used in foreign ( nonpolish) scientific works, and is listed in Dictionary of Subjects of Polish National Library.--Molobo 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As the National Library Dictionary is mentioned and the content of the article with regard to this case, it must be noted that also
  • the term...does not appear in major English-language dictionaries
  • LexisNexis shows it to have been used rarely in English-language dailies or magazines within the past 10 years
  • its Polish counterpart "antypolonizm" does not occur in major Polish dictionaries and encyclopedias.
The first two pieced of information are in the article. The last one has been silently erased even though it was verified [1] [2]. Despite this, my personal view is that the points mentioned by Molobo are enough to keep the title in Wikipedia at least as a redirection. Alx-pl D 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the word is used in scholary works, is listed in Polish dictionary of subjects in Polish National Library, is reckognised by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and studies have been made on the issue.

--Molobo 11:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • STRONG DELETE! No real proof, only POV's. An encyclopedia has to have some proofs! Justin.
  • Keep I have been following this debate for quite a while; I see no reason for the entry to be deleted. Edited? Probably. Silenced? Definitely not. Pius Aeneas 22:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE! Neutrality disputed! Kazimierz.
  • People who are saying delete need to re-examine policy. POV is a reason for cleanup, not deletion.Keep
··gracefool |☺ 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

DELETE! factual accuracy disputed. Ellen.

  • Delete I would remove it completely but if it's to stay, at least yank the pictures, they make it feel much more emotional than it should be. Can easily make up anti-anything with a bunch of photographs and historical facts, but is it really valuable? These facts belong to respective historical topics not a social one. Michal from Warsaw
  • Delete An encyclopedia has to be neutral, but this article isn't. Justin.
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.