Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination)

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 of the debate was determined after careful examination of all the edits to this page. Here are the opinions of those who have edited this page - I derived this summary by going through every single diff in the article history. Some voters did not use the terms "Keep" or "Delete" in their posts - I have done my best to reclassify such posts so that it is easier to determine the overall consensus for this article. Another reason for doing this is so that others who read the result of this AfD closing will find it easier the rationale behind the close. This is a long and complicated AfD, which contributed to its delayed closing. Votes expressed after the typical 7 day grace period are counted here. I am deliberately not posting the final decision of the close at the top to encourage everyone who had an interest in this article to read through everything I am writing here. I am aware this is somewhat unconventional, but in this case, I feel that other concerns presented outweigh the need to follow uniform practise for closing AfD debates.

Keep - Bormalagurski (talk • contribs), Filip, Jovanvb, TheFEARgod, Djordje D. Bozovic, (193.170.51.2=vlada), Milan Tešovic, Asterion, Kuratowski's Ghost, Ilir pz, Litany, Sasa Stefanovic, Dzordzm, Jitse Niesen, Manojlo, Djordjes, Branko Stojanovic, Obradović Goran, Pockey, Lakinekaki, PANONIAN, Aleksandar Šušnjar, Ketzman (see [1]), The Minister of War, Mostssa, estavisti - 26
Delete - Mel_Etitis (talk • contribs), Dado (talk • contribs), The Crow, demicx, Live Forever, Damir Mišić, Asim Led, Jkelly, Anonymous editor (talk • contribs), EmirA, HappyCamper (talk • contribs), Lrachidi, Croatian historian, Street Scholar, JHMM13, Duja, Igor Novak (actually is 83.131.17.214, which is an anonymous user), kingboyk - 18
Ambiguous - HolyRomanEmperor, Eusebeus

Even if all opinions which were considered to be from "questionable" accounts are discounted (for example, due to low edit counts, or possible sockpuppetry), the result of this debate is still at best no consensus. Now, having said this, I find that the quality of dialogue displayed on this page is not particularly exemplary of the sort of dynamic which Wikipedia requires to function smoothly. Please consider this carefully: Wikipedia (and in this case, an AfD on Wikipedia) is not the primary place to discuss the philosophies of concepts, their existence, or their validity - there are other, much more suitable forums for this. An article's existence on Wikipedia does not necessarily follow from qualification and determination of these sentiments. Discussion regarding these ideas should be invoked when it serves directly to help write freely available, quality, encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. It is my inclination that this AfD debate did not incline towards this - the exceptional amount of personal pronouns used and personal opinions expressed on this AfD is highly indicative of this. An ideal AfD should be simple to close, and only contain brief comments which answer these two questions:

  1. Do we have the intellectual resources available to us write a great encyclopedic article?
  2. Do we have volunteers who are willing to improve the article in a reasonable amount of time, so that content is verifyable and presentable to the public?

Much of the debate centered on determining whether the terminology is in use, or whether it exists or not. However, none of the posts commented directly on whether any of this material is usable for the article itself. This consideration is absolutely necessary because our primary interest is to create verifyable article content, not so much determining the validity and existence of concepts. Please remember this for the future when voting for articles undergoing deletion - especially those which easily invoke strong, polarizing opinions.

Since there was some concern regarding the possible deletion of this article, let me address this by saying that if an article is deleted on Wikipedia, it does not mean that it has no place on Wikipedia. It simply means that at the current time, with the given resources, the article does not have the ability to grow into an encyclopedic article. As a result, the community has decided that, among many tradeoffs, it would be better to delete the article, and revisit it in the future. If this were not the case, there would be no need to archive AfDs. Deletion does not need to be taken too seriously - it may be more difficult to restart an article from the beginning, but this should be interpreted to be an opportunity and encouragement to rewrite something that is of better quality than what was present before. Nevertheless, I would be highly concerned if an administrator were to close this debate as "delete" - the article as it stands exhibits certain qualities which would not warrant a deletion.

So that part of sentiment of the nominator's intentions are not lost, I will repost part of the nominating statement here:

The article itself...is little more than a focus for edit warring...

With this in mind, if an article's presence on Wikipedia siphons resources from the community which are better spent elsewhere, then perhaps it is a signal that one should actively and conscientiously pursue editing other articles temporarily where one's contributions would be appreciated and valued. The existing structure on Wikipedia can make it difficult to resolve edit wars, and I can only advocate that individuals be aware of this when the editing gets tough. It is my hope that the Magic of the Wiki can work - even for this article. This means at minimum:

  1. Transparent edits;
  2. Neutralizing edits;
  3. Quality edits;
  4. Respectful edits.

I will let the more experienced and well versed Wikipedians editing the article lead by example what this entails, and hope that everyone with an interest in it follows suit. Thank you for reading - AfD closed as no consensus. --HappyCamper 16:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbophobia

The article itself admits that the term is at best a neologism in English; its purpose (and certainly its effect) is simply to make political points, and it is little more than a focus for edit warring. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The previous AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This article has been an incredible burden to users on this Wikipedia. It serves only for political propaganda and every constructive attempt to make this article encyclopedic and not original research has been met with aggressive defiance and bullying tactics. Article is riddled with inaccuracies and it is potentially libel for Wikipedia. --Dado 23:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let me remind that arguements brought up in favor of deletion of this article were that the article is primarily used as the lightning rod for original research and that this article is going contrary to this official Wikipedia policy. Not a single person who voted to keep this article provided a counterarguement supported by evidence. Instead some have resorted to already seen tactic of bullying other users through ad hominem logigal fallacies and one has even attempted to revert the article during this discussion to a version that contained nothing but original research. We have also concluded that the term is at best neologism so it may deserve an entry in the dictionary but hardly an article in encyclopedia.--Dado 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above. --demicx 00:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE, first of all, just because an article is a "burden" on Wikipedia is not reason enough to delete it. It is not political propaganda, it is a term used in everyday life in the Balkans and it deserves an article. How can you say that it serves no purpose, when the term exists and the article explains thoroughly what it means. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. The word is not "used in everyday life in the Balkans" at all (a google search in native spelling comes up with 209 hits), but rather a propaganda term occasionally mentioned by Serbs in political discussions. Live Forever 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe it's not used that much in Sarajevo and Bosnia, but in Serbia and Montenegro it is a general term used by many. Just because Google didn't have a lot of hits, doesn't proove that it is merely propaganda. And everything you wrote below is not a reason to delete the article. The term exists, and it deserves an explination. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Google's lack of hits might not prove that its propaganda (although the biased serbian political slant of most hits certainly testifies to this), but it does clearly show that the word is hardly "commonly" used. In the several months that this article has been up, nobody has been able to prove that the term is anything more than a political accusation. Live Forever 07:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In any language: English, Franch, Deutsch, Croatian and Serbian I find a lot of Google results. --Milan Tešovic 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Try searching Srbofobija, Srbofobia, Србофобија, Србофобиа, Serbophobia, Serbofobia, Srbophobia, Srbofobia, Serbophobie, Serbophobic, Serbofobic. There are many ways to write it. If you search them all together, and there is no question that those are real results since there is no other meaning for Serbophobia or any of the variations I just mensioned. For this kind of search use "word1" OR "word2" OR "word3" OR ... --Milan Tešovic 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Out of curiosity I did search every single one of the words you mentioned. These were the results (term, actual hits/total hits, % of wikipedia mirror hits):
Srbofobija 198 / 214 (8% wikipedia)
Srbofobia 0/1 (100% wikipedia)
Србофобија 177/208 (15% wikipedia)
Србофобиа 1/3 (66% wikipedia)
Serbophobia 327/534 (39% wikipedia)
Serbofobia 39/44 (11% wikipedia)
Srbophobia 2/2 (0% wikipedia)
Srbofobia 0/1 (100% wikipedia)
Serbophobie 156/162 (4% wikipedia)
Serbophobic 260/274 (5% wikipedia)
Serbofobic 2/2 (0% wikipedia)
Which all adds up to a whooping grand total of:
1445 Google hits
964 non-Wikipedia Google hits
33% wikipedia
How about Croatophobia ? I get 1 result. So 964 to 1445 Google results is not proofing that Serbophobia does not exist?
I rest my case. Live Forever 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. "Serbophobia" is a purely political neologism used by Serbian nationalists pretty much exclusively in the past two decades to try and simplify the complex causes of the Yugoslav wars and assert that the blame for the conflict falls on the neighboring people's illogical phobic hatred of the Serbs. During the past several months the article has made absolutely no advancement excluding POV riddled versions inciting continous edit wars. Despite all attempts by Serbian users to portray the term as scientific and legitimate, not a shred of proof has been presented in some four months. The subject is inherently political and biased in nature, fairly unnotable (40% of google hits are wikipedia mirrors), and simply doesnt belong on Wikipedia. Live Forever 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valid term that anti-Serbians want to get rid of. --Filip (§) 09:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that voting to delete this article does not make you anti-Serbian. The comment above is an ad hominem logical fallacy, disregard for facts and arguements brought up, self-victimization and appeal to emotions. --Dado 10:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I never called these voters anti-Serbians, but I can't say the same for you. --Filip (§) 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there was votinag about that article, but results was that article is good and not for deletion --Jovanvb 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this reminds me of the case of changing history and deleting thruth in Orwell's 1984 novel.--TheFEARgod 13:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
ah, ah what a funny holy war the
  • Strong Delete. What should I say, I thought we were already over with this article. But it seems like somebody brought it up again. This article is strange to me, I don't doubt that there might be some kind of serbophobia in society, but, however, this is not prooved or admited yet. Therefore this article should not exist until its subject is prooved to even be real. Damir Mišić 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Voting for deletion again? I think this whole thing becomes quite serbofobic itself. ;) I live at the Balkans, and I saw and felt Serbophobia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, attacking users who vote for deletion and portraying the term as a original research. --Dado 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It is not a political term. It is objectively term to describe what is really happening and what really happend at the Balkans.--[[User:--vlada 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)]] 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
this user had never edited before --demicx 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
..but is an active sr. Wikipedia user + potential en. wikipedia user. Please stop with this morbid fight agains thruth --TheFEARgod 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that this is an anonymous user with about 30 edits and could potentially be a sock puppet--Dado 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Serbophobia exists, and Wikipedia needs an article about it. --Milan Tešovic 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know what else I can say. Not a single objection to the deletion here has had a valid point; they've all been riddled with logical fallacies and distortions of the truth. I have followed this article since the beginning and it has made absolutely no progress. To all fair and neutral users, I'd heartily suggest you read the talk page and see what user Dado has had to put up with. It is no exaggaration to say that the topic is little more than a lightning rod for Serbian political POV aspirations. This "phobia", unexistant outside the speeches and diatribes of Serb radical politicians and not justified by a shred of factual scientific evidence, has no place on Wikipedia. I urge all neutral voters to vote for a deletion of this article before the numerical superiority of Serbian users props it up yet again. Asim Led 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did you leave a message on my talk page about this afd nomination?? The Land 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Jkelly 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Neologism which isn't notable.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Serbophobia is well alive as proven by many Wikipedians' behaviour. Asterion 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Again. Attacking users who vote for deletion. Ad hominem logical fallacy. --Dado 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the phenomenon is definitely real resulting from the post-cold war political machinations and propaganda aimed at destablizing and splitting Yugoslavia in which the Serbs were chosen as scapegoat. Heck remember CNN back in the 90s. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well in that case, could you please present some proof? Some scientific evidence of this "phenomenon"? Because you seem to imply that this term represents a phobic dislike of Serbs, whereas over the past four months a dozen users have failed to provide anything other than propaganda references and their own original research. Live Forever 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete --EmirA 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- many people who have faced the serbian terror would agree with this term.Ilir pz 21:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was invited to vote on this (why I don't know), but will refrain since this is doomed to no consensus at best and I con't care aboutthe subject one way or the other. I will say this on reviewing the article, and perhaps as comfort to those who are upset by the article's continued presence on WP, and with apologies to any contributors: the extreme edit-warring has defaced the article to the point where it is almost completely incomprehensible to anyone who has not actually been involved in the dispute. 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. Eusebeus 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename - I did some searching in the library today, and I am not convinced at the moment that this word in particular is generally used in an academic context to describe the sentiments conveyed in the article itself. At the moment the word seems to incline on being a protologism or neologism, despite the fact that it has been used in a few limited contexts. --HappyCamper 23:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after long consideration. I've meet alot of people that are afraid of Serbs, just like alot are afraid of Islam. The phobic behavior is old and has it's roots in nationalism. Some Serbs created this phobia whith their actions, just like some Albaians and Croats created a phobia against them. Litany
    • But don't you agree that personally knowing people who you feel exhibit Serbophobia is just original research? Serbophobia implies that there exists an illogical hatred of Serbs based on their culture and ethnic identity. Similar points to yours were made in the previous AfD debate, but in the months since absolutely no evidence was presented for this. Rather, asides from allegations similar to the ones found on this AfD page, the only "proof" of Serbophobia has been directly tied to Serb nationalist politics - which, I hope you'd agree, would not belong on wikipedia. Live Forever 03:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I diden't participate in the previous debate and I totally agree that Serb propaganda does not belong to wikipedia. But still what "proof" do you consider proof of Serbophobia? In Sweden I've noticed alot of "Serbophobia" in our media (accusing their culture etc.), I can name some writters if you want? Still we can argue about what is Serbophobia and not, but I consider that it exist (in some way). Sorry to say but what I've seen and read in Croatia and in Serbia is not pretty. I also do not deny something we can call perhaps "Croatophobia", or do you disagre? Litany
        • But here's the thing: the current anti-Serb sentiment in the West (whatever its extent may be) is a relatively recent phenomenon and a direct result of the Yugoslav wars and nationalist Serb politics. Prior to the late 20th century, the Serbs actually enjoyed a pretty favorable reputation in the West. This "Serbophobia" is not some extensive world-wide phenomenon worthy of a lengthly article. It can be neatly incorporated into the articles Yugoslav Wars or Serbs by saying "Another result of the nationalistic wars in the 1990s was a generally negative impact on the view Westerners had of the Serbian state and people." "Serbophobia" as you describe it is not so much a racist view towards the Serb people as a response to recent political events. In a few decades, when the Yugoslav wars are forgotten in the West, do you think younger generations will still have a negative view of Serbs? What I'm saying is that as a seperate article this is little more than a protologism. After months of heavy editing, the only valid and undisputed material adds up to just a short stub. I don't dispute that some people may have a negative view of Serbs, but I think that christening this "Serbophobia" and propping up an article on it is inherently POV. What truth there is to it should be incorporated into other articles.
I am sorry for the lengthly response.Live Forever 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No need to be sorry Live Forever, what you say is not nonsense and I hear you. :) You are totally right about the recent anti-serb movement in the West even before the WW1. After WW2 they were rather well supported (do many reconized all of the population as Yugoslavs (and some still do), in the West) due to the Ustaše. First their actions in WW2 and then the terror organization (that did some terror actions even in Sweden). So you don't think that Ustaše suffered some "Serbophobia" and "Yugoslavophobia"? I see that "Serbophobia" derives from nationalism, from both sides. But nobody than the Serb nationalist will ever promote it open. Still I would not say that this is mostly a world wide problem. This is mostly a Balkan problem. Would you not say that their is a "Bosnianphobia"(alot Islamophobia) and "Croatophobia"? All this anti-ethnic groups have a long history and should all be written. I think this article is needed. Litany
  • Strong keep. As I have mentioned in my first vote against deletion of this article, this man draws enthusiastic ten-thousand-strong crowds of youngsters to his concerts to cheer up to songs titled like "Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara", "Bojna Čavoglave", etc (here is his Wikipedia entry). When this year's Croatian Eurovision Song Contest entrant Severina was selected, the media went completely ballistic over the fact that—cardinal sin—her Croatian ethnic song sounded too Serbian. It is a sad state of affairs, but Serbophobia is very well and alive, as exmeplified by people on this Wikipedia who spend their youths repeating votes in an attempt to fight their own demons. --Dzordzm 03:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How does any of this have to do with the term Serbophobia other than you personally defining it. Your comments only serve to portray bullying tactics against users with descending view that have been continually used on this article. --Dado 03:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • For heaven's sake, Dado, when somebody screams because she saw something that looks like a spider, that's called arachnophobia, and sure enough, Wikipedia has an entry on it. When somebody (Croatian media) screams because they saw something that looks like it might, just might be Serbian, nevermind it's sung by one of their most popular singers and backed by Lado singers and everything, but God forbid there is this Serbian hint in it—that's called Serbophobia. And given that—here I go and "bully" you again (give me a break)—it's very present among many Croats ans Bosniaks clearly including yourself, it veyr much deserves a Wikipedia entry.--Dzordzm 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you stopped and thoought that such behaviour may be nationalism and not Serbophobia? Your personal attacks against me have been noted--Dado 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Screaming because you saw something that looks like a spider is not nationalism, and so isn't screaming because you saw something that looks like it might be Serbian. It is a semiconscious fear of anything Serbian. By the way, I see you really like (littering Wikipedia endlessly with votes for deletion and) replying endlessly to anything I say, just as your colleague Asim Led did the last time—so now I will reply to each reply of yours. Let's see if you can keep replying longer in order to dim my point which I believe was very clear and well enough put.--Dzordzm 03:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lrachidi 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
this user has 26 edits --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Anti-serbianism or something like that. I cast my vote reluctantly, because I know that this article will become a battleground. However, there is certainly debate about anti-Serbian media bias, also in academia, so it seems to me that this is a valid topic for an article. The word "Serbophobia" does appear to be a neologism (the same could be said about "anti-Serbianism", but that is derived from "anti-Serbian" which scores about 26,200 Google hits), and in my eyes, Serbophobia is a more extreme sentiment and hence it will attract even more POV pushing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A lot of evidences are to be cited about running serbophobia. Even in this discussion. Manojlo 08:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
this user had only 11 previous edits and could potentially be a sock puppet --demicx 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
prove that you are not also a sockpuppet. Maybe you are my sockpuppet. We'll never know... --TheFEARgod 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If want a proof that he isn't a sockpuppet, here's the link showing that Manojlo has well over 1000 edits on Serbian Wikipedia. -- Obradović Goran (talk 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep ---You must keep this article if you want this wikipedia to stay objective, it is full of nationalist propaganda, and this article talk against it. I'm not saying that this article is perfect, actualy I think that it should be expanded, but if you delete it you will make a wrong mistake. This term is used very much in balkans academy circles, in every day life it is used as anti-serbian, anti-serbianism. -- (branko1408) Branko Stojanovic 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
this user had never edited before --demicx 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
this user has about 1000 edits on Serbian Wikipedia, and the proof is here --Boris Malagurski ₪
In case you didn't notice, this is not the Serbian Wikipedia od --12:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, noone cares. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
this user has 2220 edits --Latinus 18:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
so what? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I also propound to be started new articles: Croatophobia and Bosniakphobia. --Pockey 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs improvements, but it should not be deleted. Lakinekaki 19:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as there are many users on Wikipedia who are very good examples of Serbophobia, thus what better proof this article need? PANONIAN (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Citing point made by Dado above: "Attacking users who vote for deletion. Ad hominem logical fallacy". It seems all who vote to keep are actually Serbs recruited from the Serbian Wikipedia. Croatian historian 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Enough with the Ad hominem logical fallacy routine. First ten times you and Dado mentioned it, it was just stupid, but it gets rather boring, so I'll have to intervene. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy when one of the persons involved in the discussion tries to discredit other party via personal attacks, rather then by confronting other party's arguments.
Example:
person A: .. as stated in von Neumann's Game theory ..
person B: .. yes, well that von Neumann of yours advocated nuclear holocaust ..
In our case, some of the participants in the discussion are being accused of something (namely serbophobia), but not to discredit them, rather to underlie that this phenomena is alive, and present even on Wikipedia (note here that in our current treatise is of no interest if these persons really are Serpbophobs (they might not be) - now we're trying to determine if argumentum ad hominem is present, this is purely logical problem).
If for instance you are discussing if blond men exist (I am perfecly aware how stupid this example sounds - this is a logical illustration, and serves its purpose), and in no-blonde-exists team is one blond guy, it would be perfectly legal for the blondes-exist team to state the argument: Blondes-exist - see even one member of your team is a blonde. Here blondes-exists team is speaking directly about members of the opposing team (which at first wasn't the subject), but it is by no means argumentum ad hominem.
If someone would say: Your opinion/vote shouldn't count, because you're a Serbophobe!, then it would be a ad hominem. If however, someone says (as above): Serbophobia exists - for instance person XYZ is acting like a Serbophobe, then it is a logically valid argument (it may be factually incorrect, but it is still logically correct).
Logic is a serious science, and one has to study it carefully in order to assert logical truths - sometimes things can get very confusing, and mere throwing the few learned phrases that sound scientific (ad hominem/ad misercordiam/modus ponens..) can't lead anywhere (except maybe to logical fallacies). -- Obradović Goran (talk 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated arguments. In return instead of providing counter arguements supported by evidence I was accused of being a Serbophob that should, somehow, imply that my arguments are not valid. It is an indirect way of trying to damage my credibility by accusing me of a very thing that I was disputing. If that is not a logical fallacy I don't know what is. This page is supposed to be used for debate where each side should natuarally be trying to pursue other party with arguments. Instead we have a line-up of users, who obviously approched this issue not from a scientific point of view but rather a partisan one. Those same users with baseless acusations have swayed the debate dynamics into a completely unproductive direction. This whole debate, with only few exeptional remaks, just like the article is a complete sham.--Dado 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per above. No such thing exist. POV pushers from Serbian Wikipedia seems to push their Serbian nationalist POV and invent new words which do not exist in the English language. Croatian historian 12:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This user has about 21 edits on this Wikipedia, and the proof is here --Pockey 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And could potentially be a sock puppet. He/She is quite new to Wikipedia, but knows the jargon very well (reverting, vandalism, POV...). The proof is here, too. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Asbsolute keep. The fact that certain people are not themselves "Serbophobic" (or whatever you want to call this) does not mean that the issue does not exist elsewhere. Regarding this:
    • Articles talking about the same thing, just different nationality already exist and are well accepted. See Anti-Semitism.
    • There are two separate subjects the article deals with: 1) phobia (fear of Serbs) and 2) hatred of Serbs.
    • I have personally experienced both, in and out of Wikipedia. Actual examples:
  1. Taxi driver in Chicago wass very friendly and talkative until he realized I was a Serb. Then he stopped talking and started sweating.
  2. Jokes (in U.S.A.) exist that security guards need not really be strong or otherwise capable of protecting property. All they have to do is wear a sign "I am a Serb" and it will be sufficient.
  3. I have met numerous people who openly state they don't want to converse with any Serb.
  4. Wikipedia itself is full of false, anti-Serbian propaganda.
  5. Articles related to Serbia and Serbs are frequent targets of vandalism of all kinds.
  6. World War II clearly and udoubtely proves the existance of this - see, for example, Jasenovac concentration camp. Want hard documentation? Try Nyrop, Richard F. 1982. Yugoslavia: A country study. Headquarters, Department of the Army, DA Pam 550-99: American University. Also read [[2]] - about what and how things were done.
  7. The fact that someone does not like this article in presence of other similar articles is the proof by itself that the issue exists. I am not scared or hate any nationality. As such no amount of such articles will affect me in any way. The only effect of removing this article is hiding the existence of the problem. And the more people vote for deleting it the more they show the problem actually exists.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Come on guys, it's over, the people have spoken: 22 users voted "Keep", only 13 voted "Delete". Remove the deletion tag from the article. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • All who voted "keep" were Serbs and probably recruited from the Serbian Wikipedia as many of them were not contributors to the English Wikipedia and had 0 other edits. This issue should be decided by the English Wikipedia contributors, not by users of the Serbian Wikipedia. We should thus discount the Serb partisans who were recruited. Croatian historian 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and you are extraordinary active user... --Pockey 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a new user, but at least I became a user before this article was nominated for deletion. Croatian historian 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
All who voted delete have a history of supporting Palestinian/Chechen/al-Zarqawi-led suicide bombers. Hmm... can someone tell me Mossad's address?--TheFEARgod 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Croatian historian, are you trying to say that just because some people are editing for Serbian Wikipedia more than English Wikipedia, their votes should be erased? My God, its not two different encyclopedias, its the same one, but in different languages. Everyone has equal rights on this Wikipedia. You're saying that just because I have more edits in an encyclopedia thats on Serbian, I shouldn't be allowed to vote in English Wikipedia? Come on... Isn't that discrimination? I'd like an answer: Is that not Serbophobia?!!! Open your eyes people!
P.S. I'm expecting Dado to write personal attack noted beneath this sentence, even though I'm just asking questions... --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not closed yet? I vote weak keep. it may be a political term, but it goes both ways. From Serb perspective, it demonstrates an irrational hate against Serbs; from another perspective, it demonstrates an irrational Serbian sense of being hated. Thus the argument is flawed from both ways! Nonetheless, its unlikely it will ever become a decent article. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I was asked to vote regarding this subject; but it's just too fishy for me to handle; sorry, but I can't vote for either keep nor delete. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP* As we can see, the term was used in an article in the Wall Street Journal. This alone should warrant its place on Wiki. Furthermore, why do people take an issue with the fact that the word is a neolism (which it is not, by the way)?

Wiki is an encyclopedia and neologisms shouls be defined as well ( *sarcasm on* maybe we should delete the entry for the word "globalisation" since it is a neologism as well? *sarcasm off*). Moreover, the many results on Google show that the term obviously has a relevance. --Ketzman

  • Strong DELETE, I think this is another pointless articles which doesn't do any good to anyone expect trolls and I believe it should be deleted. --Street Scholar 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of the reasons above for both keeping and deleting this article are based on personal opinion. Folks, I think we should all calm down and not use phrases like, "stop trying to ignore the truth." If this article is notable enough (which users like Live Forever have made a strong case against based on Wikipedia deletion policy), then it should have strong section in it that states something like, "this phrase is often used by 'Serbian nationalists in the past two decades to try to simplify the complex causes of the Yugoslav wars and assert that the blame for the conflict falls on the neighboring people's illogical phobic hatred of the Serbs." (copied from Live Forever's comment above). I do have a problem with an article that asserts something like this just as I would have a problem with an article that asserts that slavery was the cause for the American Civil War. However, since it appears that it is all non-notable (especially in English) political jargon, I don't currently see a reason to keep it. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I was telling myself I should restrain from such discussions, yet I didn't. The problem is, although the phenomenon exists (as can be seen by, erm, certain Wikipedia editors), there's little to write about it in an encyclopedical manner; it is also likely to attract edit warring. I don't think the current version of the article is too extremely PoV-ed, but it doesn't tell anything substantial either -- it looks like a stretched pile of bits and pieces, and I doubt it can be much improved. Somewhat contrary to WP:POINT, I must say there were similar problems and similar edit wars with articles Bosnians and Bosniak unitarism (wha', that got deleted?). Both are created somewhat out of WP:POINT; ab definitio, they're doomed to be just collections of prejudices, accusations, and randomly streched facts, factoids, bits and pieces to fill in the space. Nothing useful to come from it. Duja 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been 5 days of voting, nothing is going to change significantly, the majority has voted to keep the article: 24 users voted "Keep", only 16 voted "Delete". Remove the deletion tag from the article, and stop with the voting for deletion of this article, it's getting really boring. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are bored than quit commenting on this this discussion page. There are still users who are leaving comments (at least 3 yesterday and 1 today so far) --Dado 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that some people simply wants to keep this going till the vote goes their way and the article is deleted (even by dirty tricks as throwaway usernames and vote-stacking spam). This vote was already casted once and the page was deemed as necessary for WP. There should have never been a second vote. This vote-again-till-we-get-what-we-want strategy is damaging for the whole of wikipedia. What would stop someone thinking is fair game to re-create the article if it gets banned using the sort of bad deeds at work here? As far as I am concerned, the vote is close and the KEEP option won... again. Regards, Asterion 13:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep There are more aspects to Serbophobia, and campagn to delete this page is part of the denial policies of those who deny Jasenovac and similar atrocities. Mostssa 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If we keep this article then we must permit topics like: Croatophobia, Romaphobia, anti-hungarism... i mean this is so stupid... i am not denining the existence of a anti-Serbian politics in the fascist NDH but this article is just a provocation... Im a new member and i we already noticed quite a lot of incorrect informations... i say DELETE (and im not a serbophobe just for your information) with respect IGOR NOVAK... Igor Novak

Please note this user has no previous contributions in WikiPedia. Therefore I suspect Vote Fraud attempts at work... Asterion 13:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I can't count how many users who voted "keep" have very few edits on the English Wikipedia (remember, this is the English Wikipedia and things that may be somewhat notable on the Serbian Wikipedia may not be on EN-wiki) or are clearly cross-overs from the Serbian Wiki. I seriously question the validity of this "vote" in general and I certainly hope the way things have been run here are not how things are run on the Serbian wiki because this is grossly amateur. There is clearly serious advertising of this "vote" on both sides, but by going to another Wikipedia and getting users to vote on the English wiki about the deletion of an EN-wiki page is seriously diminishing the spirit of the process. Beyond that, this is NOT a vote. AfDs are meant to create consensus among users as to whether a page should be deleted or not. It is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide whether consensus has been reached, and getting as many other users to pile on votes on one side based on flawed logic does not make the article more likely to be kept or deleted. On the note of bureaucracy, I seriously suspect Boris Malagurski's RfA attempt as a cheap-shot way to end this argument in favor of "keep." I sincerely hope everyone can just calm down and ease their nationalistic tendencies with regard to a discussion on Wikipedia that should not be laden with POV comments. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of EN-Wiki users (including myself) have never even thought to suspect a Serbian when fear strikes up, so it's not as if we're biased. Many of us are trying to make decisions based on given evidence and Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. Please stay civil. JHMM13 (T | C) 09:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Among the comments I agree with: "Serbophobia is well alive as proven by many Wikipedians' behaviour" & "there are more aspects to Serbophobia, and campagn to delete this page is part of the denial policies of those who deny Jasenovac and similar atrocities"--estavisti 17:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the vote, the article is staying where it is. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, stop with this voting to delete Serbophobia, the term exists and deserves an article about it. I'm expecting this to be the last voting on Serbophobia, although it should've ended after the first voting. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. JHMM13 (T | C) 09:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have given the article a cursory glance and have not found any major problems, but I don't know enough about the Serbian situation to justify a vote here. However, User:Bormalagurski is acting disruptively here. AfD discussions should not be speedily closed immediately when the number of "keep" votes exceeds the number of "delete" votes. This is a discussion, not a vote. Also the fact that all who voted "keep" are Serbian suggests that they are arguing from a subjective point of view. JIP | Talk 11:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are at least four persons who said keep and who are not Serbs, including one Albanian. Also, majority of people who said delete are Bosniaks and Croats. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; the reaction to and behaviour on the AFD itself actually confirms his point. --kingboyk 11:28, 26 March 2006 (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.