Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Bosniak sentiment (2nd nomination)

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 as an original research POV fork. --Core desat 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bosniak attitude[edit]

This article should be deleted along with all other Anti-X articles, for example anti-Hellenism, anti-Macedonian sentiment etc. It is full of WP:OR and cannot get any better. In the Balkans if we are to believe the Wikipedia articles everyone has discriminated against everyone else. And every piece of history is somehow discriminating or cast in a negative light towards some ethnic group. This is ridiculous. We essentially have a load of POV forks that contradict each other. Delete.

Alternatively merge into an article History of ethnic discrimination in the Balkans which would cover the subject in a neutral manner, split on a historical, not ethnic basis. - Francis Tyers · 10:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other articles in this deletion series:

Delete like the others. Common rationale, repeated here for convenience: Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism. Tankred 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the others, for the reasons exposed by Future, especially that concerning the violation of OR.--Aldux 14:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:SYN. K issL 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per arguments given here. Dahn 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon exists and discussed in reliable sources. If the article is bad, it must be cleaned, not deleted. Mukadderat 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It is documented and describes real facts. These kind of situations occured and there is no real need to delete the article, but to improve it. And per this search also. --R O ^{A M A T A A}| msg 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOR, WP:POVFORKs. No exceptions = no bitching. Niko Silver 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article presents real facts. But we must take care with the NPOV. --Mocu 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; fails WP:SYN. See my further reasoning at the Serbophobia AfD. Duja► 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Local incidents hyped by (tabloid) media and individuals covering their own xenophobia or another agenda by pointing fingers at others are not valid enough for an encyclopedia article. You could find individuals in every nation hating some other nation/culture/race/whatever, yet that should be covered enough in general articles about prejudice, racism and such. Unless there is some substantial evidence for anti-whatever sentiment, these types of articles should have no place in Wikipedia.--Svetovid 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic. Nearly every nation has its share of being hated or discriminated against. `'юзырь:mikka 16:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all, if possible). If this article is kept then remove the recent tabloid news - this kind of "original research", connecting senzationalist media news under common umbrella, does not belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however, only if all the other "anti-x" articles go as well (except established ones such as anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism).Osli73 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is properly referenced and is a pretty big topic. It only needs expansion. Plus, pretty known example of this is the Bosnian War, where most of the Serbian army killed Bosniaks, look at the Srebrenica massacre for God sakes. So many Bosniaks were killed in that war if you haven't noticed. Do you know why there is only one Bosniak minister in the Serbian Government? Well, it's only because of Carla del Ponte, that's it! Talk about being anti-Bosniak. Plus, why do you think Bosnia is split up into two seperate entities? Because the Serbs dislike the Bosniaks in Bosnia and wanted their own entity to keep the Bosniaks out. Ugh, there is so much to add on as examples of Anti-Bosniak sentiment... --CrnaGora 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You haven't addressed the rationale given for deletion. WP:SYN. This article is not properly sourced. Where is the academic discussion describing events of 1663 as part of the same phenomenon as those in the Bosnian war? Where is the academic source that describes the "attitude"(!) of the people who did certain things in 1803 (rather than just the effects of their actions)? Where is the academic source describing the "attitude" of people who use the term "mulimani"? -- I was tempted to start sprinkling {fact} tags all over the article, but it would have been pointy; if I were to remove all original-research elements from the article it would have been left with no introduction, no structuring and just a list of disconnected details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this is an important topic, and the article is well referenced.AlexanderPar 09:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article may have references and still violate two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Just like this one. This article can only ever be WP:OR.- Francis Tyers · 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Why do you want to delete the anti-X articles? I agree with AlexanderPar.Baxter9 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article may have references and still violate two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Just like this one. This article can only ever be WP:OR. - Francis Tyers · 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, anti-X articles can be kept, but must be watched for OR --Pejman47 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly biased original research & synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I fully agree with Fut.Perf. - Ev 11:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.