Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia

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. Of the arguments to "keep", Martintg's fails to address this article, Suva uses the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, Alexia Death says "it's okay because it's young", Sander Sade makes a good argument, Digurwen is too busy attacking the nominator to say why it should be kept, Piotr's is just awful, Edson has a good argujment, "seems like a real phenomenon" (JIP) isn't persuasive, Darwinek says keep per Suva and accuses people of bad faith, then a run of "keep per aboves" which add nothing to the discussion, and nothing else really adding anything other than weight of numbers. Unfrotunately, weight of numbers is insufficient; the arguments for deletion (WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, neologism, the fact Russian-Estonian relations already exists) are far more persusuive and rooted in actual Wikipedia policy. So, delete. Neil ╦ 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estophobia

Estophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way. `'Miikka 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN: unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position, said position being that estophobia/anti-Estonianism is a notable phenomenon/problem. Taken item-by-item, this is a mere list of newspaper clippings about a bunch of different events. The only thing holding them together is the page author's (not the sources') contention that they're examples of the phenomenon he posits to exist. "Estophobia" has no GBooks hits. [1] Similar arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal also apply here. cab 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Somehow you fail to mention it has Google Scholar hits [2], which are far more important then Google Books hits. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Google scholar gives one paper mirrored in two locations which judging from the title "Citizenship and borders: Legacies of Soviet empire in Estonia" is not primarily about the topic of "Estophobia". Compare this to prejudices like Anti-Japanese sentiment [3] or [4] Islamophobia which have whole books written about them. cab 08:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Japan and Islam generally represents a much, much larger field of research that is more likely to yeild specific books on their respective phobias, however that does not make anti-Estonian sentiment any less real. In fact there is a book published that cites "Baltophobia" (hatred of both Latvians and Estonians by their colonial masters) as an age old phenomenon [5]. Martintg 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as worthless as Russophobia - which I am sure will be brought up as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS counterargument. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with cab. Recognising that this is a notable topic, I feel it would be fair to give some time to the main author to improve the article, even though honestly I don't feel "some time" will help much, considering the current shape of the article. POV-pushing looks too strong at this point in the article. --BeautifulFlying 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please state the POV being pushed, so it can be dealt with. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A fair request. I find the following statements in the article being POV-pushing, as long as there's no reference given for the statements:
  1. accusations, most of them baseless
  2. for reasons such as a desire for sensationalism
  3. false rumours
  4. about the rumours, some of them traceable to the Night Watch pressure group
Also, I find the paragraph ...a poll conducted in April 2007, has found that 59% of Russia's residents agree with the statement "Estonian authorities discriminate against Russophones in Estonia and deliberately provoke conflicts with Russia". irrelevant in the article Estophobia. Condemning actions by governments of other countries doesn't qualify as a phobia. --BeautifulFlying 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I shall deal with the first two. The exact manner is yet uncertain; if I won't find suitable sources within a reasonable timeframe, I'll just take them out. The second one, in particular, comes from Chomsky's theory of institutional media bias, and it might indeed be that nobody notable has yet made the connection between that and Russian media. The third one is a factual claim: the rumours presented are indeed factually false. The fourth can be backed up with news reports and news analyses from recent months. Consequently, I do not see WP:POV in them, and if you disagree with their factuality, or at least that they can be treated as issues of fact, I ask that you elaborate.
Wtih all my respect to Chomsky, if you link whatever he said in his research with the articles in today's Russian press to come to a conclusion that the Russian press acts with a desire of sensationalism, this will qualify as a classic WP:SYN (which is usually utilized to advance someone's position, = POV). Regarding the 3 and 4, if the rumours are proved to be rumours and false ones, and if the rumours are proved to be tracable to such and such groups, then references to prooves must be present in an encyclopedic article. That's all I'm asking for. --BeautifulFlying 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding the rumours - Wikipedia should not be a collection of rumours, but if the fact of such and such rumours circulation is important, a reference is needed that explains why these rumours are notable to be included in the article. --BeautifulFlying 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your fifth claim is more interesting. I would tend to disagree, but this would probably grow into a longer discussion better suited for Talk:Estophobia than for this AFD here. As of now, the reference is in the section Estophobia#Accusations of discrimination of minorities and as such, illustrates such accusations' effectiveness and wide field of acceptance; however, if you insist, I can move the reference to the talk page until the discussion is held. Digwuren 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this (afd) page is not the right place for this discussion. Let's move this over to the article talk page. --BeautifulFlying 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when did we use AfD to solve content disputes? There is atleast one scholarly paper published on the "Estophobia" phenomenon [6]. Note the originator of this AfD also started a similar action against Nashism with similar arguments Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nashism. After Nashism was deleted, he subsequently recreated it with new content. If content is the issue, then tag the article appropriately and edit it, don't abuse the AfD process. Martintg 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • FUI, AfD discussed exactly content of articles, not their title, editors, AfD nominators, etc., according to wikipedia rules. You are not novices here and must know the rules already. Writing essays is the basic forbidden things. Starting from reputable sources that define the notion is the best way staaying out of trouble. Wikipedia rules specifically say that articles may be recreated in a way consistent with rules. And I recreated it after waiting, like, two weeks during which the passionate defenders did nothing. And I don't want to tag it, I want to delete it, exactly because IMO its content has no place neither in wikipedia, nor in its edit history, which is visible to everyone. `'Miikka 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The original article Nashism was a five line stub, with a reference to a peer reviewed journal. So there wouldn't have been much of a history. Only you had an issue with the source not being reputable, even though most British university libraries seem to to think it reputable enough for their collections. Stubs, as I recall, are intended to be placeholders of notable topics with an implict invitation to all to expand the article. Your main argument for deletion was that it is a newly-coined neologism. So two weeks after deletion you decide that is no longer a newly-coined neologism and decide to re-create it? Martintg 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Nope. I didn't re-create it. You still fail to see the difference between the article title and article topic. The deleted article's topic was uneducated speculations of a thoroughly nonnotable person published in an obscure magazine. `'Miikka 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • A nasty comment: I can't but notice some double standards here [7]. Or have you just changed your mind, which you're certainly entitled to? Duja► 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The whole article corresponds to WP:SYNTH. It is like reading the titles of all 22 first refs and come out w/ Estophobia. Most of the titles mean just that there are frictions instead of a concerted campaign. Some of the contents can be merged w/ Foreign relations of Estonia or have something like [Russian-Estonian relations]. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • All of the first 22 sources refer to the phenomenon, and most mention a concerted campaign. Anyway, what kind of reference do you believe would satisfy your concerns? I could try and find one. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, total WP:SYNTH job here. And dang -- that's the most footnotes that I've seen bunched together. 22 at a time?! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I cannot speak for Digwuren, but as the article is obviously a work in progress, I suspect he wanted to collect sources to one place. Or, as he has been (almost always baselessly) accused of POV and OR, he wanted to make sure no one can accuse of that again. Sander Säde 06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's more the latter than the former. RJ CG, a well-known Estophobe, attacked the page yesterday -- hours after its creation -- and claimed that the concept doesn't exist. Thus, I made a selection of more than 10,000 articles, found by a few Google runs, on a diversity basis, and attached some of these sources to the lead. (See also Talk:Estophobia#Fact? Fact!) It won't stay that way. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - a cursory examination of a random selection of th articles associated with WikiProject Discrimination suggests that most of them are the worst kind of unsourced and/or OR POV bilge. I'd be glad to see others - including many of the articles you mention above - brought here for AfD. Bigdaddy1981 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, discrimination against peoples or culture doesn't exist in your world, so we should purge this bilge from Wikipedia. So when are you going to start an AfD against Antiziganism? Martintg 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I haven't seen any "Australians and dogs not allowed" signs, similar to the one in Estophobia and other signs like here [8] Martintg 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You may have a point in regard to Australia. But when nation of 140 million armed to the teeth and vast natural resources thinks a tiny neighbouring country of 1.4 million as one of its greatest enemies [9], [10], that is irrational by any standard, hence the validity of an article like Anti-Estonian sentiment Martintg 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember Australia the state engaged in the grave-digging excercise either. Question of WWII is extremely touchy-feely topic for Russians and emotions had been running pretty high during Bronze Soldier row. I'd say that accusation of "imperialism" and "estophobia", liberally sprinkled here by the members of Korps! Estonia are much more prominent examples of racial hatred than speedily-removed sign on single restaurant in provincial city, erected and removed in the heat of spat.RJ CG 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather ironic that Russians are so sensitive to moving one single Red Army memorial to a cemetary 60 years after the war, when the Red Army destroyed every single memorial to the Estonian War of Independance in the late 1940's, every single one, with explosives no less! Compared with Estonians showing respect by reinterring the remains from a grave located next to a bustop to a peaceful military cemetary, with Russians destroying hundreds of memorials across Estonia in the 1940's indicates a clear example of Estophobia. Martintg 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Excellent idea! I didn't even know about WP:WPDISC, but if Bigdaddy's assertion is correct, and if they are perpetuating this kind of stuff, they should better be MfDed. As for your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, we're trying to get rid of those, one by one. Anti-Greek, Bosniaks, Croatian and Hungarian, all conceived in the same manner as this one, WP:SYN collection of historical facts, factoids and sore grapes. Serbophobia and Anti-Romanian sentiment did survive in this turn. Oh, yes, and Delete, by this reasoning. Duja► 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't really a wonder you didn't know it. Somebody has categorised this AfD under Science and technology, and it seems likely that's how you got here. The topic, obviously, is about humanities instead, and it is to be expected that a hard sciences' geek would be unfamiliar with humanities. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is classified so because it belongs to social sciences. The AfD classification is necessarily relatively coarse and sometimes may be not very intuitive. Mukadderat 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To satisfy your curiosity, I got aware about it from another Estonian-Russian sour grapes thread at WP:AN/I, and, given my previous involvement with similar articles (check the other Anti-XXXism AfDs linked above), I felt inclined to comment here as well. Not that it matters to anything. Duja► 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep they even teach this in school here. It has been researched, and indeed is official word. The article is expanding, and so there are some unrelated refs and some refs missing. This is normal with a new stub article. About notability. If one little pacifist country has been declared "Russian biggest enemy" by several polls and researches in last several years, it's definitely notable. If this is deleted I request the deletion of Russophobia aswell. The latter is clearly synthesized: collection of articles where someone says "russians suck". Suva 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a) its way to young of an article to condemn yet. b) It is an article a about a valid phenomenon. To those saying its POV, It is an article about a particular POV, Estophobia. If POV can be decribed more neutraly then please improve the article.--Alexia Death 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I brought up the term POV earlier, to emphasize that synthesis is used to push a certain POV in the article. But I admit that generally WP:SYN is a much bigger (and more relevant) issue here. At the same time I don't mind at all to give some time (as I mentioned above) to the authors to improve the article (that in its current shape definitely deserves to be deleted). --BeautifulFlying 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Noteworthily, Mikkalai issued the AFD less than a day after the article's creation, while it had the "Under construction" tag on it. It isn't surprising that it wasn't in the best of shapes at that time. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That's why I find it fair to give you (as the main contributor) a reasonable time to improve the article, and clean it up from OR, SYN & POV. Good luck with that. --BeautifulFlying 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Suva. This AfD is an obvious attempt to censor Wikipedia by wiki-lawyering. As mikkalai is a long-time contributor to Russofobia and has not wanted to delete that article, then I cannot see this in any other way except as a bad-faith nomination. Article has barely been started, but has good and strong references, describing a well-known phenomenon. Word is not a neologism, it is used in scientific articles [11] and news, as can seen by references. Cannot be called WP:OR, as it is well-referenced and no examples of WP:SYNTH has been given, so that can be discarded as well. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable neologism. Another trollish attempt at original research aimed at making a point Molobo-Bonaparte-style. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A search on "anti estonian sentiment" brings plenty of hits [12] Martintg 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. First of all, Google tests don't mean anything. And there's also one thing that bother's me... Not to be rude, Ghirla, but I'm wondering about something. Why do you seem to use the word "troll" so much? It's a good idea to keep WP:COOL and assume good faith. I'm sure the writers of the article aren't trolls, so it could be considered a personal attack. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. -- Magioladitis 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not neologism. It's less used in english language, more in estonian and russian (for obvious reasons), but it is correctly formed phobia name also accepted. But one thing can noone deny. That the problem discussed in the article is true, and definitely needs some notion in wikipedia. Can anyone argue? Suva 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That very well might be the case, but the fact that the subject of discussion is interesting does not override essential WP policies such as WP:OR. When the subject is notable, but the term is not, the article being about the term, that article constitutes original research. IgorSF 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism; Google search results are a pretty good indication of the degree of use of this term. Appears to be a clear application of WP:SYNTH, as per all citing above. To respond to those mentioning a comparison with Russophobia, the latter term is actually known on its own (i.e., outside of Wikipedia), and I have personally heard it, whereas the subject of this AfD I have not.IgorSF 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a neologism, used in scholarly articles, see [13]. Has been shown before, seems that previous three contributors did not read the discussion and should therefore change their votes. Sander Säde 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that google returns more results of Russophobia than Estophobia doesn't really prove the word being neologism. It only proves that there is more people who hate russians. Which is also obvious because there is much more russians and more reasons to hate them than estonians. Also estophobia has become widely popular just lately, so the popularity of this word will grow. Suva 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Your hate talk ("there is more people who hate russians", etc) is cheap and illustrates that your group views Wikipedia as a soapbox for making highly tendentious, divisive edits. I assume it is aimed at those who are not aware about such charming pages of Estonian history as the Klooga concentration camp and like to picture it as a peaceful, harmless little country. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You know, Ghirla, even I would not have expected you to go as low as this. So, Nazis created Klooga concentration camp, therefore there is no Estophobia? Great logic! Demonstrates very clearly that estophobia exists and is present here in Wikipedia as well, therefore the article is valid and needed. Sander Säde 08:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You need to demonstrate that there was any German personnel involved in the maintenance of the Estonian concentration camps. Estonia was the only country of Europe where the Holocaust concentration camps were more or less voluntarily run by the native population. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    That is just plain lie and hate speech. Estonian personnel were not "volunteers", nor did they run the camps. See that nice article you linked, "The Vaivara camp complex was commanded by German officers (Hans Aumeier, Otto Brennais, and Franz von Bodman) /.../" As for volunteers... if you have a choice, be a camp guard or get shot, that is definitely volunteering. Involvement of Estonians was no more prominent then the involvement of locals in Ukraine or Latvia. Your accusations are purely racist. And, like Suva said, enough of this here. You've clearly shown your estophobia and reason for supporting deletion, I don't think you can add anything else more supportive for keeping the article in question. Sander Säde 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ever heard of shared responsibilities? Yes, the Nazis are primarily responsible for the extermination of 99% Jews in Estonia. However, to the degree that nationals from subject nations participated and the lack of duress involved, these subject people are jointly responsible. And Estonians according to all accounts, absolutely stood out as far as numbers and unsollicited enthousiasm was concerned. You have just demonstrated why people are right to be worried about the inability of Estonians to face up to their past. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You mean, such inability as prime minister apologizing for actions of those Estonians involved in Holocaust, opening of the Holocaust memorial and prime minister & president opening of the synagogue? Gee, what horrible things to do! I must have missed when Putin apologized for Soviet crimes in Estonia... Sander Säde 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    And opening a monument to the Waffen SS on the very next day... --Ghirla-трёп- 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to bring down your little fantasy world, but there are no monuments for Waffen-SS in Estonia. Sander Säde 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Most publications dealing with Monument of Lihula did agree that it honours veterans of Waffen SS among others. So may be there are no monument, but there were. RJ CG 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is factually wrong, and as an avid edit warrior on Monument of Lihula, you know it. Consequently, I can, in good conscience, declare that you are lying here. Digwuren 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You should remember that good part of article you translated as best proof that Monument contained no Nazi symbols had been devoted to whitewashing of Estonian participation in Nazi military units. All discussion was about symbology, as explicit Nazi symbols on statue would be crime according to Estonian law. But nobody denied connection as a whole, especially taking into account absence of anti-communist military units not associated with German authorities at 1942-1945. So you sir caught red-handed with your baseless politically-motivated accusations. This isn't the first time. RJ CG 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What Ghirlandajo is doing here is WP:TROLLing in hope to derail the discussion. And any lie is good for the holy purpose of trolling, right? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD page is not a good place for content dispute as such. So I recommend you to stop discussing different theories of Estonian history here and concentrate on the article instead. Suva 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nazism, btw, is not a definition of nationality, but one of views. All nations big enough have some small group of people, that the rest are deeply ashamed for, that are Nazis by views. Even Your nation has them. Condemning a whole nation for the actions of a few is a sign of phobia against that nation. Also, nationality is not a matter of choice, views are. --Alexia Death 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    It was Soviet blood that destroyed 80 percent of the German army, a remarkable feat that the current "Western Alliance" in its more disingenuous moments conveniently forgets. Estonia for its own part was such an enthusiastic member of the Third Reich that Hitler allowed it to form its own Waffen SS regiment, the Narwa, under Reichs-Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler. Contrary to historical revisionists, this regiment was not formed of conscripts. It was called "Freiwilligen" because it was formed of volunteers. The war crimes of the Waffen SS are well documented. In 2002, the "compassionate" Estonian government, claiming insufficient evidence, refused to prosecute Estonian veterans accused of crimes against humanity by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In 2005, Estonians attempted to put up a statue to their soldiers who fought under Germany. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*I'd have some words about this but they have all been told before and you have not heard, so theres really no point. You are blind to any other POV than yours and incapable of understanding the struggles of small nations. I guess thats just who you are. We will continue this where it is APPROPRIATE. I have let you troll me long enough.--Alexia Death 12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hate talk? I am sorry, but it was not intended as such. It is clear fact that there are more people who hate russians than those who hate Estonians. Why? Because there are more russians than estonians, russia is definitely more well known. Would be saying "More people hate Microsoft Windows than SkyOS?" hate talk aswell? More reasons to hate? Russia has been and is involved in several wars. Even if they were for good cause, war always "steps on someones toes". Estonian current military activity is connected solely with peace missions (which also unfortunately sometimes step on someones toes, but clearly on smaller scale). Suva 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Fayssal and others, and as per my standards expressed in similar cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No keeps sufficiently refute the allegation of OR. GizzaDiscuss © 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not DaGizza, but as for my part, it would require a scholarly book or multiple peer-reviewed articles which investigate the phenomenon throughout the history, as presented. Without scholarly research, it's just sour grapes in violation of WP:SYN. Duja► 12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll try to get you a book citation or two soon. For obvious reasons, this is a slower process than with news citations, especially now that the libraries are starting to close down for summer. Digwuren 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is not yet any scholarly book or multiple peer-reviewed articles yet regarding Terrorism in the United Kingdom, yet we have an article which basically only cites newpaper reports. Why don't we AfD this article too? Martintg 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You are kidding right? Terrorism in the United Kingdom is concerned with the recent islamofascist terrorist bombings in London. Your links concerns IRA terrorism a decade earlier. Martintg 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The nomination is in bad faith, and the article is still young. (Even now, it hasn't reached its first 24 hours!) Ghirlandajo's remarks attest to the reality of the phenomenon, and various content improvements are already being worked towards. Digwuren 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess additional evidence to support the reality of bad faith is in order. Without comments (well, comments will be provided if somebody requests them), check out these deletions: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Digwuren 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not only is it a bad faith nomination, but hypocritical. Here the nominator votes to keep Serbophobia in another AfD [19] Martintg 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I was the first to point that out, above, but I won't (and can't) claim copyright. As for the "bad faith nom", even if it were one (which I don't presume), it's completely irrelevant as to its merit, based on policies. Duja► 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your statement doesn't address any of the issues raised about this article. The issue is not whether "Estophobia" exists. The issue is whether it is the topic of scholarly discourse anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • About the first: I unfortunately don't read a word of Estonian. But it sure doesn't look like a scholarly text. What is it? -- about the second: that's a text that mentions, in passing, that some people were hostile against Estonians at some point in time. That doesn't make "Estophobia" an academic field of study. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, since Piotrus worked hard to save the anti-Polonism series of articles/categories from deletion, I think it was only natural for him to vote the way he did. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose it has little to do with contents and topic of the article, and everything to do with this. Duja► 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This phobia series require massive cleanup. Hostilities between nations are all over the history. Some of them very notable and long established, especially against colonial empires, and the articles have right to be. But they must be heavily cleaned. For example Francophobia which I looked for comparison with the discussed one, is a horrible collection of orangles and apples. Of all, Estophobia is the worst one, evidently dictated by the recent events liberally collecting each and every stupid thing published in Russian newspapers and rumors (!). Everyone knows that newspapers are not source of wisdom. Sensationalism arises not from ethnic hatred, but from desire to make money. The article vigorously denies various "accusations" while the reasonably NPOV article History of Russians in Estonia ssay that there are solid reasons under these accusations. The article twists facts and misquotes sources (out of good faith, I may assume this was the problem of translation). In summary, the authors of the article have heavy conflict of interest and incapable to present the history in neutral manner. At the same time, I may point out the possible way to salvage some material from this text: the article Estonian-Russian relations may be a good place to provide a balanced POV. Mukadderat 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, I got an edit conflict! But I was the first that got that idea :-)! Duja► 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposal. Practically all contents of this article are related to Russo-Estonian relations; I guess that was the point of the exercise. This is a legitimate topic, and seems to have been studied fairly extensively. GBooks GScholar, here. I'm ready to change my mind if the article is renamed and refactored along those lines, and POV issues sorted out. I admit that any article name in the form of Foophobia or Anti-Foo sentiment causes a knee-jerk reaction by myself. Maybe a wider Russo-Baltic relations are called for, if the issues in all three Baltic countries are similar (which is my superficial impression) Duja► 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • They are similar only superficially. The three Baltic states have very different issues with the "Russian question"and its acuity, judging from the articles like History of Russians in Lithuania & two others. Mukadderat 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't descent on Digwuren's level and respond to his childish accusations and personal attacks. I would not suggest what to do with this article, although I consider it (1)frivolous and (2) good illustration for "Rusophobia" page (when every critical comment from Russian media met with "hate speech" accusations and even mere act of watching Russian TV is viewed by Estonian governmental think tank as anti-Estonian[1]). I would just comment that we are still dialing with Korps!Estonia. Again, content dispute involving any of Korps! members (Digwuren, Suva, Alexia Death, Sander Säde, Marting associated member) attracts immediate attention of others. And again Korps' members are only ones who support POV. Just one vote to Keep from wikipedian not associated with Korps! and numerous votes to delete from unrelated wikipedians (although I can suspect some of them were attracted to this page through edit logs of Korps! members). RJ CG 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research & synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Nice to see yet another article that, instead of dealing with how a certain phenomenon is analyzed in serious publications, jumps directly to give examples collected by the article's writers of "how much those mean people hate us" :-) Please, keep nominating all the "X-phobias". - Ev 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that each "phobia" must be judged by its own merits. What these articles need is massive cleanup, similar to the current campaign against "trivia" garbage sections in articles. Mere collections of facts must be mercilessly deleted unless these facts are quoted in reputable sources in support of the subject. Otherwise it is OR and POV pushing. Mukadderat 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, of course. The problem is that a cleanup of these articles under normal circumstances has proven difficult and time-consuming, not to mention the constant baby-sitting they require afterwards. A nomination for deletion can force a drastic change: compare "Serbophobia" before and after its June 2007 nomination (although since then, after over a dozen reverts, the old stuff is creeping back into the text). - Regards, Ev 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. VanTucky (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rename to Anti-Estonianism or other merely descriptive term, because the present title fails as a neologism and the references are not about it per se. I looked at a number of the references and did not find the term in them. The article, as is, is poorly written, and a series of "TBA" headings would be better kept in the creator of the article's sandbox until he/she finds acceptable sources satisfying WP:A to use in writing them. The references do make the case that there are people who do not like Estonia and Estonians, and that there is and has been oppression and harrassment. This is hardly surprising, as there are people who do not like and who harrass, attack or kill Israelis, Arabs, Mexicans, people from the United States, the French, the Irish, the British, Asians, Jews, Christians, Moslems, Gypsies, Germans, Russians, Pakistanis, Indians, (and Indians of various castes), Native Americans, African Americans, African Africans who are White, African Africans who are Black, and many other definable racial/ethnic/national/religious groups. Wikipedia is not paper, so if there are multiple reliable and independent sources (such as presented for this article) with substantial coverage to show a history of hatred, discrimination, harrassment and prejudice against any such group, then it is not original research or synthesis to write an article based on those sources. Edison 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hideous POV-pushing mass of WP:OR#SYN. A neologism to boot. If someone wants to write Estonian-Russian relations from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective, that might work. But this article needs to be scrapped. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you - or someone else - finally show where the article is POV or WP:OR#SYN? So far there has been no examples of those, just accusations - which seem to be actually estophobia... Sander Säde 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you - or someone else - show that any of the sources cited in the article talk about anti-Estonian discrimination as a generalized phenomenon? So far, the sources look like they're talking about individual incidents. Since "estophobia" appears to be a neologism, I doubt anyone's written about something of this name, but I'm happy to reconsider if sources can be brought forward. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Estophobia seems like a real phenomenon, we just have to avoid this becoming a flamewar. I would fill in the Finland subsection if I had more experience of anti-Estonian attitudes in Finland. Anti-Swedish and anti-Russian attitudes are commonplace, but I haven't experienced anti-Estonian attitudes. JIP | Talk 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy, and please don't start articles "under construction" in article space, Digwuren. Work on it in a text editor or your userspace until it's fit to be moved to mainspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that readers are supposed to be able to look up a concept and read about it without having to make allowances for the article being "young". (How're they supposed to know it is, anyway? Readers don't click on History tabs.) Wikipedia pages may be undeveloped stubs, that's quite aceptable, but an (in conception) long article full of empty sections isn't something we show readers. Nor is a word with 22 footnotes after it! If I'd come upon this article without it being already on AfD, I would have deleted those section headings at the least. So, what's the "Under construction" template for, then? It's for what it says: "Expansion" or "major re-vamping" of an already existing article. Please use it for that purpose only. While I personally doubt that an article on this concept is capable of becoming encyclopedic, why not give Digwuren a chance to show it can be? Digwuren, I suggest that working on a user subpage is probably preferable to a text editor in this case, as it's then possible to put on an explicit invitation for others to help, in case they're too polite to edit in your space. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
This proposal has merit. I will support this. However, for sake of clarity, it was me who tagged the page as under construction, as RJ CG (talk · contribs) started actively to edit the article while it was obvious that Digwuren was working on it. I thought it to be easiest way to allow him to work in peace even for a little while - especially since I was sure that our estophobes will nominate the article for deletion as soon as they notice it - and, as you can see, it happened. Sander Säde 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think it's a safe bet that the vast majority of folks voting delete on this article are not "estophobes." Those kinds of implications don't help the case here at all... Myself, for example, I voted "weak delete," and to be honest I don't know anything about Estonia (except that it was a former Soviet republic), I know nothing about its history or culture, I could not recognize an Estonian person on the street.. hell, it'd probably take me ten minutes just to find Estonia on a map. So I cannot possibly be an "estophobe." I voted delete because I don't think this article meets Wikipedia policies, not because I hate Estonians. Heh, I wouldn't even know how to insult Estonians even if I wanted too! heh... --Jaysweet 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal by Bishonen to move this article to Digwuren's user space is very reasonable. Fundamentally, a good-quality article about Estophobia can be created, but in the present shape the article can't be left in the main article space. --BeautifulFlying 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The title fails WP:NEO, so at absolute minimum it needs a rename. As written, an appropriate name for the article might be List of anti-Estonian remarks in Russian publications, which would obviously fail WP:LIST. My delete vote is only weak because some of this information might be worth distilling and merging into an article along the lines of Russo-Baltic Relations as Duja proposed. --Jaysweet 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    See User:Petri Krohn/Russian-Estonian relations and Territorial claims of the Baltic States, among others. I don't think we terribly need a vague generalization like Russian-Baltic relations, because the relations with Latvia are uphill and the relations with Estonia are downhill. I predict that the page will degenerate into a compilation of anti-Russian sentiment found in the tendentious outlets along the lines of the Washington Pravda.
    What we really need is the cleanup of those articles that already exist. 2007 Estonian unrest starts with the line "soviet vandalism begun amid political controversy", not very helpful to say the least. History of Russians in Estonia needs to spotlight the fact that one third of Estonian people (those of Slavic origin) are not allowed to vote and their language has no official recognition. This is perhaps the most egregious human rights violation in the context of the European Union. Actually, the percentage of Francophones in Canada is smaller than the Russian-speakers in Estonia, yet Canada is officially bilingual. "Estophobia" talk is just a veil to gloss over political and cultural suppression of several million Russian people in the Baltic states (consequently, in the EU). --Ghirla-трёп- 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your rant above is a classic case of Estophobia. I don't know where you get the "one third" from, only 9% of people residing in Estonia lack citizenship, and that figure is decreasing every year. The remainder are either Russian or Estonian citizens. Those who naturalised and became Estonian citizens pledged alligence to the Estonian constitution, with the full knowledge that it proclaims the Estonian language as the one and only official language. Of those who gained Russian citizenship, I don't know any country that allows foreign citizens to vote in national elections. So I really don't know what your problem is with Estonia is. Martintg 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so it does come down to And you are lynching Negroes after all? And, as you know by reading those articles, they can participate in local elections. Estonian government and non-profit organizations are continuously helping Russophones to get citizenship - such as making language exams easier, free language courses, summer camps for both Russophones and Estonian children and much more. But, well, you may take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink... Sander Säde 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I started an article on Russian-Estonian relations in my user space, but soon found out that as long at this current campaing of disruptive edits and bad faith AfD nominations on Estonia related articles continues, it is impossible to contribute anything to main space. (Well, I did create a stub on Kalev Class Submarine.) I do not think I will be contributing to the Russian-Estonian relations article before this (Russian) Estonian propaganda war goes to WP:ArbCom and/or someone gets fired. -- Petri Krohn 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    P.S. I changed my mind, the stub is now at Russo-Estonian relations. Feel free to expand. (Unless, of course, you would rather spend your time with this article.)-- Petri Krohn 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    See, Duja, it turn out that Petri Krohn was firster than both of us :-) Mukadderat 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Suva. I smell bad faith here. - Darwinek 16:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this faeces per WP:POINT, inferiority complexes are not a justification for creating unencyclopedic POV articles. --Kuban Cossack 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean, such WP:POINT as this superior example of estophobia? Sander Säde 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well one can always move keep it in his userspace. We have seen worse, a LOT worse entries in userspaces. --Kuban Cossack 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We might, but I most certainly have never seen worse racism then [[Estonians|FASCIST PIGS]] in userspace, as it was in your page. Sander Säde 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not anti-semitism nor anything remotely like racism. Whatever useful content that might be sifted out of the article should be included in Russian-Estonian relations. This, however, smacks of nothing but wounded nationalist pride. Peter Isotalo 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate what aspect of "nationalist pride" has been wounded? The only "wounded nationalist pride" I see here is wounded Russian pride over removal of a statue to a military cemetery. Martintg 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that's not it. The wounded nationalist pride playing rôle at this AFD is about somebody being worshipful enough while writing about Mother Russia. As for the article; the only way of interpreting what it is now, or what it has been within the few last days, as that, is — as much as I can figure — psychological projection. Digwuren 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And mark my words; if I see an AfD of Russophobia, I'll vote to delete it on the same grounds already stated. Peter Isotalo 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided. There is a trove of sources, but the article itself is stubbish and does a poor job of sourcing any of its claims (all of the sources are for just one sentence). A summary of the Bronze Soldier controversy makes up the bulk of the article, but we already have an article for it. I'm reserving judgement because of the "under construction" sign. If someone manages to write a coherent, filled-out article with good use of sources, my vote will be "keep". Esn 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Good articles take time to build. If every article got AFD:d right after creation because somebody doesn't like it, Wikipedia would be much emptier than it is now. Digwuren 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "We already have an article for it": You must be kidding. We alredy have four of them! `'Mїkka 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article seems to be well-researched and has enough credible sources to merit at least the right to exist. The first picture in the article is a very eloquent reason why this topic has a merit. An attempt to destroy and delete it shows more of a personal attitude rather than an attempt to treat the subject fairly. --Hillock65 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to Anti-Estonian sentiment. I see no reason for deleting an article about existing fenomenon. Oth 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Rename to Anti-Estonian sentiment. --Yakudza 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per above. This phenomenon objectively exists, so we should pay enough attention, despite strong opposition to it here --Fire.Tree 22:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral In principle, I'd support deletion of all OR, POV and propaganda articles to make WP a cooperative project rather that a playground of ethnic conflicts. But we have to apply the same standards to all articles like this. So, I invite everybody who supported the deletion of this article to vote also here.--Mbuk 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that Anti-Estonian sentiments is a better title, I agree that in the current state the article is incomplete, but I don't agree with those claiming that the subject is not valid. It is as valid as Rusophobia taking into account the size of Estonia and Russia. I can see anti-estonian sentiments being mentioned in the J of Political Science and Politics back in 1991, and repeatedly mentioned in the recent articles in the J of Baltic Studies.[21]. While the very recent outbreak of Estophobia (due to the removal of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn) didn't find its way into academic sources, the sufficiently reliable Russian media sources (TV, newspapers) have been specifically showing anti-estonian sentiments across Russia. The single facts (boycott of Estonian goods, renaming initiatives, protests near estonian diplomatic missions) were deliberately shown by the media as an illustration of the response of Russians to the monument removal.--Novelbank 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not a patological hatred, as the proposed term implies. It is a regular reaction upon an action considered a national insult. Regardless occopation/liberation dispute, a simple Russian soldier with his blood drowned the Nazis. It was not a monument to Stalin. It was not a grave of a Communsit boss. This grave digging was an act of hatred towards a simple Russian person persished during cleansing of Europe from brown infestation. A very nice twist: an example of Russophobia is turned into Estophobia. Anyway, the problem is not nonexistence of the phenomenon. the problem is nonencycloedic treatment. A bunch of examples when some bozos call other people names does not make it article. `'Míkka 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Anyway, I dont' see Russians flocking to vote for deletion of this article. Whatever. I will not lose my sleep if the article survives. `'Míkka 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an interesting and actual subject, Wikipedia deserves an article on it. For those who want to userfy this article... Don't the "under construction" tags exist for a reason? I would recomment waiting a bit until this article is cleaned up before deciding on whether to delete it or not, but this subject has notability. Wikipedia shouldn't try keeping a narrow scope of subjects. After all, this is an encyclopedia and it should cover every subject the readers are interested in. Since some readers are also writers, I'm sure a lot of people will improve the article in the next few days. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Yakudza & Hillock65.--Ahonc (Talk) 11:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Estophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--SefringleTalk 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Russofobia? I think you voted for the wrong article? Sander Säde 06:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- SefringleTalk 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- SefringleTalk 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps rename Anti-Estonian sentiment.E.J. 06:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable topic in its own right, AfD is not cleanup. —Xezbeth 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently neologism, also the article is written as to imply that "accusations" are really false. Some of the rumours explicitly marked as false are at least questionable (that the monument would be, or was, sawn into pieces;, that the riots were a natural part of a peaceful protest action;. Finally lots of things are unreferenced (some of the aforementioned rumours, their connexion with Night Watch and Nashi, Rein Lang incident, etc) or referenced improperly. I seriously doubt one will be able to find sources supporting some or most of them. If all this is taken from the article I think almost nothing will remain. I think whatever useful info the article contains should go to Russian-Estonian relations, where it'll appear in right context. Alæxis¿question? 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It remarks when it discusses a false accusation. Surely you don't mean to imply that accusations' falsity should be the default option, and it should be pointed out when some turns out to be true? Digwuren 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't quite get you. I wrote that in order to call an accusation false you have to have a proof of it. Furthermore the very existence of some of the accusations and their connection with Estophobia are not sourced. Alæxis¿question? 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In the Western world, it's generally accepted that in matters of accusation, the burden of proof is on the accuser. (Remember also the Scottish verdict.) Even so, the falsity of some of these accusations has been proven.
As these accusations are now unreferenced I don't know who made them and, consequently, what kind of standards should be applied to them. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your notion regarding the connection not being solidly sourced at some cases appears to have merit, though, and is certainly an area of further development. Digwuren 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that I see no way of proving this connexion by legitimate sources in the near future (especially considering that no such term as Estophobia is used now in scholarly sources :)). That's why I've voted for deletion. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison. This topic is controversial, but notable. --Dezidor 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove from Category:Discrimination and remove from template {{Discrimination2}}. Move to different name and delete redirect from neologism estophobia.
As for the article: yes, there is definitely plenty of hate to go around. Hate for and by Estonians is a notable topic. In fact, at times the whole nations seems to be acting like a hate group. This hate has however nothing to do with discrimination or racism, but originates from animosity between Soviet Estonians in the Estonian SSR and the Estonian exile community and the Estonian Government in Exile. The fact that this hatred boils over to Wikipedia in the form of this article, its AfD nomination (this page), and even to a revert war on the nomination's talk page, is proof only of the fact that Estonians have so far been unable to reach a national consensus between those loyal to to Soviet Estonia and those waging the Cold War in the exile community (and often accused of collaboration with the Nazis).
If this article is to stay (under a different name), it should also present the factual (and nonfactual) basis for the anti-Estonian sentiment. In fact, we may need to repeat every word of Soviet propaganda against the Estonian exile community. (I do not think this is what the articles creator had in mind.)
Now, if I may, I will pour some more gasoline on this flamefest.
  1. A story I only heard a few weeks ago: The Baltic exile community in Sweden has been very successful. Many Balts own large apartments on Stockholm's prestige neighborhood of Östermalm. It seems to be a widely held belief in Sweden, that these apartments were financed by gold carried by the refugees over the Baltic Sea at the bottom of their suitcases. Naturally, the story goes, this gold consisted mainly of gold teeth extracted from Jewish Holocaust victims, executed by Estonian Nazi collaborators. (I think I may have traced the factual origins of the story, but more on that later.)
  2. Many leaders of the Estonian exile community were Nazi collaborators, many were even key figures in organizing the Holocaust in Estonia. One notable example is Ain-Ervin Mere, founder of the Eesti Vabadusliit (Estonian Liberation Movement?) During Nazi rule he was personally responsible for selekting German and Czechoslovakian Jews for immediate gold-teeth extraction, or for rape in orgies arranged by his henchmen (and delayed execution).
Not all Estonian exiles were Nazis. The problem is, that unlike other European nations, the Estonian exile community has never gone through denazification. I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were (uncivil comment removed). -- Petri Krohn 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the author of the above comments himself admits that he is pouring gasoline on a fire here, and so is obviously trolling, I would urge all editors to think carefully before responding. Reading Wikipedia:What is a troll may be useful. Balcer 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not trolling, but you are right, I would not appreciate yet another trollfest started by my comment. The reason I have included the inflammatory material, is to point out what kind of stuff needs to be included if this "article" is to stay. If you cannot handle this, then DELETE. -- Petri Krohn 01:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As to why I am presenting my possible contribution to the article here, and not in the article itself? The creator of the article has been systematically reverting my every Estonia related contribution since he "joined" Wikipedia in the wake of the Bronze Soldier controversy. I do not expect to be able to edit the article, unless he is banned from Wikipedia. I do not think our Russian editors have much of a change either. In its present state, the article is irreparably damaged by ownership. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You know Petri, your support of Ghirla's classification of votes along ethnic lines [22], and your latest outburst above, demonstrates to all here what you really are, no matter how much you attempt to spin it afterwards in some desperate damage control effort. Why do you harbour such strong hate towards Estonians? You seem to believe there is world wide conspiracy of emigre Estonians lurking in Wikipedia. What next, a claim there exists a Protocol of the Elders of Estonian Exiles guiding their activities? Smells like Estophobia. Martintg 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not feed the troll. Small lies, big lies, statistics and Petri Krohn. Sander Säde 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a neologism, if not an outright protologism. First, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Second, the discussion, such as it could be would focus on historical currents. Since this is a brand new coinage with fewer citations that Slartybartfast, there isn't much that is possible there. Instead, we can have, and do have, a nice bit of WP:BATTLEFIELD going on. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores, for illuminating the world about the ultimate reality of "those people," or fixing the world. It's an encyclopedia, and this article cannot be encyclopedic and must not be lexical. Geogre 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Probably every nation and country in the world has experienced prejudice and hostility at some point, and the trend towards creating articles about each instance of this seems to be almost inevitable on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the increasing number of entries in Template:Discrimination. Still, so far we do not have an article devoted to discrimination against every country or nation, in fact of the 200 or so countries on the planet, only about 15% have a "Hatred of ..." article, in other words 85% don't. So, it seems to me that at least at this point in time it has to be shown convincingly why this article is notable enough to exist. Less than 50 Google hits total for "estophobia" does not inspire confidence about its notability. If the situation changes in the future, the article may be created again. Balcer 05:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now because it appears to be a well-documented phenomenon, but with the proviso that it undergoes substantial improvement in the next couple of months and that the main editors seriously consider a rename to "Anti-Estonian sentiment". If the article shows little progress by then, I may reconsider, but for now, let's not delete evidence of what does appear a noteworthy subject. Biruitorul 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I am limited by the fact that I can read neither Estonian nor Russian, those are weaknesses that most of the potential readers of the article will have. I can't check the references and, even if I could, I would have no basis on which to assess the credibility of any one source from any other. I can tell you that, in English, the only "Estophobia" of which I have ever heard is in this article, in its talk page and on this AfD page. The more I read the article, -and yes, it has been re-writtten, but my comments still stand- the more it feels like someone (or ones) needs to make this collection of disparate idiocies into a single, big thing, a serious sociological phenomenon, though to what purpose, I am not sure. Does it make what may be legitimate grievances more believable to group them under a silly neologism, and one that almost no one will understand without a gloss? I am suspicious of all opinion polls, and even more so when nothing of the pollsters, their methods or the purpose of the poll is explained for the average reader. Newspaper articles, even from the most highly respected journalists, are also suspect until time has passed, and many other "eyes and ears" have assessed the reports. There is a definite "in crowd" feeling in the article, in the references and in all those heated discussions. Certainly, no one is trying to make the information accessible to the English readers of Wikipedia or to make the argument appear to be anything more than name-calling. (I am not being chavinistic here. You will note that I consider it a weakness that I have only one language, but it is the language in which this article purports to present itself as an explanation of a phenomemon, the name of which, at the very least, an Anglophone interested in Estonia, for example, should recognize.) I am sorry to say but it reads like a rant, a soap-box listing of indignities, real or imagined, designed to inflame but not to explain. It seems that a lot of the countries, willingly or unwillingly once a part of the USSR, have serious cultural, social, historical, legal, and every other kind of difficulty imaginable in reconnecting with their own histroy and in relating to today's Russia; the reverse is also true, it would appear. Perhaps that is the phenonmenon that someone, somewhere may write about and Wikipedia may then report upon. For the moment, this is a collection of "did not" "did so", though more elegantly phrased, that does not make a topic for an article. Bielle 07:04, 16 July 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.