Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment

Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced WP:OR screed, POV magnet, troll-fodder for edit wars and move wars within hours of its creation. As if we hadn't already enough articles about the Macedonian conflict.

Same problem applies here as with most other "Anti-X'ism" articles; see precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism, from which the following rationale is quoted almost verbatim: The problem with these articles is not the sourcing of the individual facts they report. Of course there are people who have displayed or expressed hostility towards Macedonians. And of course other people criticising the former have employed terms like "anti-Macedonian" to describe them. Of course that's all sourceable. The point is: There is no scholarly literature (WP:RS) that discusses all these different historical situations as part of a single story, a single unified pattern or phenomenon. The article commits OR by constructing "a novel narrative" from these unrelated instances.

So, please, no "keep" arguments along the line of: "But I know people who are anti-Macedonian! It exists!" or "But I found the term 'Anti-Macedonian' on Google!" or "But it has some sources!". Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing the existence of "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" as a consistent, unified pattern. None of the ones quoted now does this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Here we go again. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular it is not a place to air your grievances. These articles are inevitably POV, and just as inevitably become vandal magnets. BTLizard
  • Delete: per nom; the argument is correct and persuasive.  RGTraynor  13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not so much per the "anti-" arguments (in the "serbophobia" article's 3rd AfD I expressed in detail my opinion on the "anti-" articles, and how they could be regarded as proper encyclopedic articles IMO), but because this article lacks completely the structure of a proper encyclopedic article. It hardly has a context, mixing 2-3 incidents without offering the overall analysis its topic would require. Subsequently, as it is now, without even clarifying its scope, and without indicating how some isolated incidents construct an overall phenomenon worth to mention in an encyclopedia, this article fails the criterion of notability as well. Not to mention that the selective mentioning of 2-3 incidents, which stop at a certain chronological moment fail to indicate the continuity, and the subsequent alleged importance of the phainomenon.--Yannismarou 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR per nomination, before I succumb to the temptation to write an article about Anti-Florentine sentiment, packed with Pisan and Sienese sources, spiced with quotations from Dante and "Il Vernacoliere" , ranging from the Battle of Montaperti to widespread non-Florentine Tuscan support for Juventus as the nemesis of hated Fiorentina. Stammer 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all anti-X-ism articles. - Francis Tyers · 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason as Francis, delete all anti-X-ism articles. It does not make sense to keep this article if we deleted anti-hellenism, and this is quite blatant POV pushing. Maybe we can move the content to an article on Slavic minorities in various countries. 74.134.238.58 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All entries are cited, how is it OR? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Simple. This article doesn't cite sources discussing general anti-Slav sentiment in Macedonia. Its citations describe various incidents, in language heavily loaded with allegations of racism and xenophobia, which the creator of the article then cites as proof of this theory. With only one exception, every single source comes from Macedonian advocacy websites; there is a near-complete lack of reliable, third-party, independent, published sources. The creator isn't describing a phenomenon discussed in primary sources; he's taking sources and deriving a synthesis from it. That's the definition of original research.  RGTraynor  18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:SYN. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this policy is not always enforced by admins closing AfDs. Stammer 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Heck, to get the situation delineated in WP:SYN, you'd have to have reliable sources. This article doesn't manage that much. Surely if these demonstrations and riots the creator cites were as large and menacing as all of that, the international news media (or even the Greek media) would have noticed.  RGTraynor  20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and de-SYNify So... The problem is not with the cited material, or with the article topic, but with the adjectives and connections made. So, remove the adjectives and OR connections, and the article is OK. Improve, not delete. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 04:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I dont' see much of the OR or SYN that is being referred to. And I don't see any discussions about objectionable content on the talk page -- which would be the normal first step to addressing problems with an article, not straight to AFD. Could someone point out the portions that violate OR? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read the nomination statement? The problem is with the cited material, and it is with the article topic. It's not with any specific "parts", it's with the whole premise of the article. The problem is that an article was written in the absence of reliable sources saying that the topic of the article exists. There's no use cleaning up details or discussing such cleanup in talk when the whole premise of the article is unsourced. And I took it straight for AfD because it's one in a long row of questionable articles that get written on a pure tit-for-tat basis by nationalist edit-warring factions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not concerning myself with the sad state of Wikipedia politicism as rationale for article deletion, and dealing, rather, with the content of articles... If there are cited examples of the sentiment described, then the sentiment described does exist. What then can be objected to -- the word itself? Wouldn't then a simple rename to Discrimination against Slav-Macedonians suffice? The article establishes both the existence of the sentiment as well as the use of the term with more than adequate citations. Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, the article does not construct a narrative at all. It is currently just a list of incidents of anti-slav-macedonian expression. Nowhere does it draw a connection between the incidents. Nor would it have to do so in order to cover the topic, any more than Inbreeding suggests, through its coverage of the topic, that all cases of inbreeding are part of the same story. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the rational here. All these amateurish nationalistic anti-X articles (unless it's adequately sourced that such a movement exists and there is reliable literature on the topic, e.g. Anti-Semitism) should be deleted.--Ploutarchos 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment use those information in other articles.--Svetovid 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; as he said, there is no scholarly literature on the topic.--Aldux 14:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all "anti-X" articles. WP:NOR, WP:POVFORKs. No exceptions = no bitching. NikoSilver 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at an offsite copy of Anti-Hellenism, I see that it says a lot of things like "Anti-hellenism is a conspiracy" and makes value judgements about other works. Whether or not those and other objectionable bits of content necessitated deletion (IMO it didn't), this article doesn't commit those sins. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this "offsite copy" was already deleted from wikipedia. So, your argument is baseless. Unfortunately, wikipedia sysops do not have the authority to delete theses "offsite copies".--Yannismarou 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My argument is that the principle used to delete Anti-Hellenism -- namely that it asserted conclusions, characterizations, and connections from its content that were not verifiable -- doesn't apply to this article, and this is determinable by comparing the two articles. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:58, 5 June 2007 (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.