Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 13 May 2006 (Added Edge the Devilhunter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 12 >

Purge server cache

May 13

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The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 03:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lina (singer)

Not very notable (has her myspace listed under ext. links) but is signed to Atlantic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 Merge and redirect to Repossession. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repossession Agent

Delete as randomcrapcruft that is also attack on repo men. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:09, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Amberly Jane

This article is about an advice column written in a student newspaper. It was originally nominated for speedy but I changed it to prod as it didn't meet anyt of the speedy criteria. An anonymous editor removed the prod notice so it is here. It has no verifiable sources online see [2] as they are either the newspaper or Wikipedia and/or mirrors. Delete Capitalistroadster 00:28, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 Move Found objects to Found object per new proposal after rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found objects

This is a poorly written stray from the main article Found art. The Talk:Found objects states that there is some misleading info contained in this. There is no info to merge. Suggest that this redirects to Found art Clubmarx | Talk 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten

I've added this sub-heading because I've attempted an overhaul of the article. As it was written, it only discussed found objects with relevance to art, yet they are equally relevant to music, so a simple redirect is not a good idea. However, as the article was previously there was no mention of music at all. The article is a perfectly valid subject for an article, though it needs to be strongly tied in with the related subject at found art, probably using {{seemain}} or similar, and needs to be moved to found object, singular, which is currently a redirect. It also needs, though, to be just as storngly tied in with music. If you've already voted, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your stance based on what the article looks like now. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the latest version, but again there's nothing in Found objects that's not already in Found art - the latter article includes a section on Found sounds in music. I'm still not seeing any compelling reason not to just redirect this page to Found art. Sorry, Gwernol 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'd suggest moving the information on found objects in music to this page - it really doesn't have much relevance to found art. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are now assessing the article on a different basis. The main nom objections were: 1)poorly written 2) stray from the main article Found art 3)misleading info 4)no info to merge. None of these applies any more, and there are other considerations. a)should Found art also cover the music info (I would say no—there should be some equivalent such as Found music or Found objects in music b)Should there be a Found object article covering the range of uses: art, music, what else—theatre? architecture? interior design? etc. I think there is a strong case for this. I have left messages on the talk pages of both WikiProject Arts and WikiProject Visual arts and suggest the best solution now may be to hand the issue over to the project(s), so that any decision can be integrated in a wider arts approach, rather than assessed in isolation. Tyrenius 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For found objects in music there are of course musique concrète and sampling (music)... I agree that it would be a good idea to have a more general discussion on how to organize this subject, also because I don't like it that common terms like readymade and objet trouvé redirect to the far less common found art. Personally I think it would be best to have an introduction at found art, which links to articles on found objects in music (musique concrète), in plastic arts (readymade) and film (found footage - we don't even have that!). David Sneek 10:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination for delete - Because of the rewrite and the other issues that have been brought up, it seemed like this should no longer be deleted. However I don't think the plural form Found objects is the right place, the singular Found object seems to be better. Right now, Found object is a redirect to Found art. I'd like to propose:
- to Move the Found objects page to Found object
- to redirect the Found objects page to Found object
I'd add this comment to the talk page of Found objects as well. Clubmarx | Talk 19:33, 14 May 2006 (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.
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 Deleted and protected from recreation by Marudubshinki.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myg0t

OR, GHits are a bunch of junk links. Also shows up in Wiktionary; should probably be deleted there too. Deleted and undeleted more times than I've edited my userpage. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:54, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DchozN

NN per WP:BIO. Googling finds the first 10 entries all penned by the subject himself, either on his own site, or gaming sites of which he is a member; not verifying notability. Appears prolific, but not necessarily notable. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are exactly that. Your own narrow subjective opinion on a person the e-sports community has already deemed a forerunner, not to mention bringing digital editing of competitive gaming events to cable television in the near future - a huge step forward for the e-sports community. Because User:pd_THOR does not seem able to grasp the concept of e-sports nor what they are represent in terms of bringing a growing sport to a more mainstream crowd; as well as User:pd_THOR only bothering to look through the first 10 out of 100+ results not only shows his incompetence to thoroughly investigate a matter, but should bring about questioning regarding all said user's past article editing history.

- Hyungjin 21:13, 12 May 2006

  • Delete but do not block for later recreation. I agree that Mr. Cho is certainly prolific, possibly even noted in his particular sphere of interest, I don't see that he is particularly notable as per Wikipedia policy. Most of his Google hits are articles by him, but none appear to be about him other than those which are autobiographical. Having many of his contributions in the past few hours, I see there being future possibility for him, and would like to suggest that the article be left open so that in the future, if he becomes notable enough for inclusion, it may be recreated.
In addition, I think Hyungjin's comments are bordering on personal attack (See also: Straw man), and are inappropriate for this forum. Sorry, Hyungjin, but I think you were a bit over the line. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Howell (and Gary Howell/Temp)

Not-notable local politician and owner of a business that fails WP:CORP. He also has a few media citations, but all together this is still a not notable biography. It also seems that the article MAY be a vanity article for User:71Demon based on similar information on his user page. If so, I would be ok with userfying the article. youngamerican (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's first contribution to wikipedia. 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: Its not my first contribution. I had another user ID and forgot my password, so I created a new one. Christopher-B 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rjm656s 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [non-registered user: Jeff Hartsell] Keep: Gary Howell has been in the auto racing industry for quite some time, and is known for bring innovative parts and great customer service to the front lines. He has also been a great help in building legislation for credit card fraud as well as pushing the government to help protect small businesses. He's been recognized in many journals, tv and books, so therefore it should stay. -Jeff Hartsell; owner of GlacialGraphics.net
User 24.35.21.53 (talk · contribs)'s first contribution to wikipedia. 69.4.137.153 01:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the irony, no need to point it out. :) 69.4.137.153 01:14, 15 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheHabboWWE

Untranslated entry after two weeks at WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. No vote Kusma (討論) 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. This appears to be about a wrestler. More than that I can't say.--Bachrach44 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish. "TheHabboWWE started as a little organisation(?) in the Internet hotel HabboHotel." It's clearly not about a person, but is something about wrestling: "Year III began with Backlash, where Eddie Guerrero became WHC for the first time (last four words are in English)." But if it's notable, it needs rewriting, never mind translating. ColinFine 13:44, 28 April 2006 (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.
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 No consensus -> Keep. Deizio talk 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods

It might be big, but it is also unencyclopedic. For one, most of these mods are non-notable and dead. Also, a list of mods in itself could be considered advertising, as it has little encyclopedic value.--Zxcvbnm 02:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It has immense encyclopedic value as a record of of dozens of notable 1942 modes, and as a wider historical value of the rise of mods as historical, cultural, and social event. Bfelite 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a problem with deleting so soon. Mant of the deleted articles in the recent months that were sequentially nominated by Zxcvbnm, were not just deleted, but merged to this article, or the existence of this articles was given as a reason for deletion. Deleting this so soon would be a violation of the results and reasons for the earlier AFDs results. Bfelite 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out List of Half-Life 2 mods recently survived AFD Bfelite 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A listing of information about mods tens of thousands of people have played, have been featured in numerous magazines, and involved a community in the millions far from being cruft. 02:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's my question - how wide is the interest in this particular subject? Judging from your answer, not very. Tyrenius 07:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people have played these mods, thats far from a 'small population'. BF1942 is had millions of players, and has one of largest most notable modding communities in the history of gaming. Its like deleting an entire cultural movement. Bfelite 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the nn mod articles have already been deleted--Zxcvbnm 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commentI couldn't care less anymore. Just noting that some go through many mod-pages, proclaim that the mods could be listed 'here' only, then go here and want this page deleted. Zarkow 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this a serious problem as MODS that were deemed NN to have there own article, but be part of a list were left here. Bfelite 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a very nice list, much better than most of the listcruft that we see on here. Unfortunately, this isn't gamefaqs. Suggest that the creator copy it over at gamefaqs prior to deletion, if it isn't there already. (Might be a licensing problem with doing that, though, now that I think about it.) ergot 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single creator, the article has been edited by dozens of people over several years. Bfelite 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, it is likely a violation to AFD at this time anyway, because many of the smaller mod articles were merged here when they were AFD, or this was given as reason for deleting them. Bfelite 02:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think its list cruft when tens of thousands of people have downloaded these mods, they have been featured in numerous publications, and have been actively supported by Electronics Arts (such as via a posts on the official websites and a community helper). Bfelite 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep And style along with the "list of Halflife 2 mods". BF 1942 is one of EA's most popular games and basically created the modern squad fps genre. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This has a large mod-base. It is quite notable. .... 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most of lists in Wikipaedia have lots of not-notable entries and a few that make them encyclopaedic. However, contrary to most lists on wikipaedia, this one has a real header, a pic... This project would not benefit from such a deletion. //Halibutt 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', this mods have been notable and is one of the most played games in the world. --Terence Ong 08:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... only on the grounds that it is massively culled down. While the mod culture of BF1942 was very extensive, that fact does not justify listing each and every mod that was ever conceived. A large number of these mods were never released - they should not be listed - we dont list songs never recorded, or books never published, etc. An issue which probably has no democratic solution is that there is no hard and fast definition of a mod. I could edit a couple of textures, call it a mod, and release it. This mod would deserve absolutely no recognition in an encyclopedia. My suggestion is to find an agreement on the minimum number of verified downloads that a particular mod has had, and only include those above it in this article. Remy B 08:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an encyclopedia, folks. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to Battlefield 1942. Zaxem 09:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You would actually prefer this huge mass of content to be dumped into the Battlefield 1942 article than stay where it is? The notability requirements for entries in a list in the main article would have to be very strict - the Battlefield 2 article only mentions about 2 mods for example. Remy B 10:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The topic is encyclopaedic and interesting. bbx 10:19, 18 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paperback Rhino

Is this anything other than a Vanity article? There's nothing encyclopedic about it -- no dates of founding, no info about the founders (none of whom have Wikipedia entries), no dates or locations of significant performances. The mention of it in the Iowa article seems to be only a pretext to have this stub of an article. This group might be of interest to some University of Iowa students, but I see no evidence that it's known outside the undergrad student/improv comedy communities. BuckRose 02:55, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic visual arts and design topics

This has been a mess for a very long time. Other lists linked on this page are no longer there. This is in no way a list of basic topics. There are many 'A' entries, and then it peters out. It started to be a comprehensive list of topics (which would be strange to do with such a big subject.) There may be a need to explain visual art/design basics, but that should go to improving the main Visual arts page.

Also, there only link to this page is List of basic topic lists. - Clubmarx | Talk 02:58, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 Speedied. Tawker 03:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clover hill golf course

Article is very POV and seems to be mostly advertising.


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.
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 speedy delete A7 (no assertion of importance of subject matter). Metamagician3000 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Algera

Someone tried to speedy this awhile ago and was invited to AfD it. Didn't happen but I'm listing it now. Nothing given about notability. Google, once again, is no help. Crystallina 03:27, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 proof that I can't even get my own submissions deleted. Good night. — May. 14, '06 [10:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Gnaa, Nigeria

Self-nomination: I wrote this article. I don't see any potential for expanding this, due to the lack of verifiable information on this non-notable town. Furthermore, it's only been a target for vandalism and editing disputes with regards to the target of the gnaa redirect. — May. 13, '06 [03:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/0/Gnaa.html
http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NI/a/G/n/
http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.2245072/Gnaa/
These are verifiable proof that Gnaa in Nigeria exists, therefore WP:V isn't violated. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:15, 14 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Vs. Blue Roleplay

Non-notable spinoff of the forums of the Red vs Blue website. No Google hits. Prod tag was previously removed. — TKD::Talk 04:08, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of North Carolina

This article, while potentially useful, is currently nothing more than a template with a couple of links. If information is added, then consider this nomination withdrawn. Also, it seemed to have a bit of a problem loading - I'm not sure if that's a problem with my computer or with the article, but if anyone else gets it then let me know. Paul 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There actually are similar articles for other states, and I think that such an article could be created for any state that doesn't have one, but this one is still pretty useless. Paul 13:04, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. -- Drini 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Stop

A7, non-notable dance studio.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:28, 13 May 2006 (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.
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 No consensus, kept ("keep": 15, del: 15) Comment a significant amoun of objections was related to the fact that it is a neologism with very low English usage. Therefore it is strongly recommended to rename the article. `'mikka (t) 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatophobia

Neologism, google gives only 2 hits outside wikipedia, both mirrors of the single page, OR (in fact, a fully speculative POV nationalist rant). The article itself admits it is a neologism: The term is non-existent in the English language. - quote from the article! Rockie21 05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of this AfD process this user has one (1) edit. I'm not sure what the exact policy is, but it seems that his motives in bringing this up aren't that pristine. --Elephantus 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I've argued for deleting this article for some time. First of all because Croatophobia is really only a term made up to deflect criticism, legitimate or not, of certain aspects of Croatian history and politics. By applying the phobia suffix it tries to imply that such criticism is irrational. Finally, it isn't a word in English and isn't used outside of Croatia. If it should be included, then the definition should be something like "term used by some media in Croatia to characterize criticism of Croatia, Croatian politics or aspects of Crotian history.Osli73 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to disapppoint you, I'll requote (neologism ?) examples of "legitimate criticism" of Croatian policy etc: Examples like [11], [12], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [13] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. Mir Harven 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR ---J.S (t|c) 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the word exists in Croatian, as the article says, it doesn't belong in the English encyclopedia if the article admits the word doesn't exist. Otherwise, it's OR. --Ataricodfish 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POINT article on a protologism. What's there to keep? -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above obvious reasons. Tyrenius 07:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is a notable phenomenon, the fact that no English word exists for it (yet) is not a deletion argument, exactly because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not write about words in the English language but about concepts and objects in the real world. If "Croatophobia" is real, or there are notable enough allegations that it is, the English Wikipedia should still be able to write about it using some title, even if the only sources are in Croatian or other languages, and the entry has to borrow a foreign word to describe it (we do that all the time with, for instance, obscure theological concepts in Hinduism or Islam, that can only be described through borrowing words in Sanskrit or Arabic unknown to the average educated English-speaker). (I am still skeptical about this article from the point of view of the WP:NOR policy, and not really prepared to recommend to keep it, but I think some of the deletion arguments are faulty.) u p p l a n d 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying that we should delete it because it's not an English word (otherwise, tons of entries would disappear from WP). I'm saying it should be deleted because you can't simply make up an English word and assume that it will eventually become the word to describe their topic, which is borderline Not a crystal ball. The word itself is also strong POV and OR, considering there were 22 hits on Yahoo! for this "Croatian" word and many of them were Wiki related [14]. This is no different than myself creating an article on TomCruiseaphobia and stating this is not a word yet but eventually will describe the public's tiring of his tabloid existance. --Ataricodfish 13:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that u p p l a n d has a point here. If the word is actually used in other languages then it should still be in the English encyclopedia, or at least shouldn't be automatically deleted because we in the English world are unaware of it. The English Wikipedia should not be only about English and/or American concepts and ideas, but rather an English translation of ALL ideas. And if Croatophobia is a real sentiment in other cultures or languages I think we should know about it. I'm not sure the support is there from the other languages, but I agree that it shouldn't be so readily deleted. It is not the same as TomCruiseaphobia because nobody actually uses that term in any language. Noetic Sage 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word is, according to article, not used even in Croatian, until some journalist coined it in 1999. It does not seem to be widely used word at all - croatian word gets about 10 hits [15]. The article with similar title has been deleted from german wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroatophobie - notice that the link exist in google hits, so it was recently deleted). The main concern is not about the word (the title could in principle be changed to something like anti-croatian sentiment), but that it is a OR construction, which bases the "evidence" of the existence of the subject of the article on some web formums etc. - clearly a violation of NOR policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, after all. Rockie21 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep Linguistic quasi-arguments are, essentially-laughable. Any significant hostility towards a specific ethnic/national group or ideological/"racial" construct is expressed, generally, by a Greek (sometimes Latin) neologism combining the name of a particular nation & the suffix -phobia. Hence well known Francophobia, Anglophobia, Russophopia, Europhobia,...and probably less known Sinophobia, ...You can add words I'm not certain one can find in a dictionary, but are meaningful anyway: Hibernophobia, Albanophobia, Polonophobia, Brazilophobia, Negrophobia, ....As I see, the existence of the article is disputed, mainly, along two following lines: a) there is no such a word in English dictionary. Remark: since this word has been used at least once in a news article, it certainly is an English word- the fact that dictionary writers were too lazy (or, more realistically, slower in updates) to inscribe it as a "dictionary word", means nothing. Hence, IMO, "language argument" is worthless 2) the second objection would be that such a thing does not exist. Well, while I can, to a degree, sympatzhize with the 1st objection & find a value in it, the 2nd objection I find personally offensive. Examples like [16], [17], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [18] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. This is their opinion on the Croats. As far as examples of Croatophobia on wikipedia, one need not go much further: just check the "contributions" like the following ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SradkaW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Petrinja, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Purger etc. etc. What's the purpose of these "contribs"-save the defamation of Croats & all things Croatian ? If these are not examples of Croatophobia, I don't know what the term stands for ? Or-do you, proponents of the deletion of the article on Croatophobia, endorse such views ? Mir Harven 09:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have pointed out above, the fact that no English word is established for something is not a valid argument not to have an article on a particular topic, so I agree with you on that point. However, the problem remains that this looks like original research in Wikipedia terms. You are referring to what you consider examples of croatophobia (and so is the article), while what you should refer to is someone who has written about croatophobia or whatever name s/he would chose to use for it. Some random Serbian contributors' purportedly anti-Croatian edits on Wikipedia, for instance, are completely useless as sources for a Wikipedia articles. u p p l a n d 09:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow your way of reasoning. It's not just me, but, I guess any mentally sane person's perception that statements like "The thirst for blood is the X-nation's ethnic being", "The X-nation is filled wirth hatred towards Y-nation" are examples of "X-nationphobia". It's no original research, but a simple consensus on what mental (in)sanity looks like. As for Croatophobic wikipedinas, I've referred to them simply as illustration of this mentality-not as a "proof" wiki should accept or cite. But, gloves off, for a moment: how would any rational person characterize an imaginary wiki contributor whose edits or "contribs" would consist, 90%, of the following stuff: they write on, say, American Negroes (I'll skip a PC term "African-American") by insisting that: Negroes are 13% of the US population & over 50% of "American crime"; they score lower than whites at IQ tests; they have extremely high percentage of out-of-wedlock births; they are overrepresented in the field of violent crime; they ...And this imaginary contributor doesn't say a word on Negro contribution to American music, sports, literature etc. So-how would you characterize user whose edits are profiled in such a way ? Would they be rightly dubbed Negrophobes ? As are, without doubt, those Serbian popsucketeers I've mentioned earlier. Mir Harven 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yesterday I was going to argue for keeping the article, because - I must admit - I'm not radically opposed to the "we think that" type of OR. After all, articles on Serbophobia and anti-Bosniak sentiment do exist, and they are mostly OR, too. Furthermore, I had already been accused of Croatophobia several times by Croatian users, so I assumed that it was already an established concept in Croatian. However, I changed my mind when I found out that on the whole Internet (judging from Google hits), there are only 5 real occurrences of "kroatofobija", 2 real occurrences of "hrvatofobija" and 1 real occurrence of "croatofobija". This means that the concept isn't established even in Croatian yet, let alone in English - it has been used just a couple of times, and you just can't define Croatophobia as including opinions X, Y, and Z, when almost nobody actually uses the word. Using wiki as a vehicle to create and propagate a concept is, IMO, going just a bit too far. On the other hand, if things like Serbophobia and similar stuff are to stay, then I guess most of the current content of Croatophobia should be kept under a title like, say, Perceived anti-Croatian prejudices and propaganda. So I guess my vote would have to be something like "keep, but rename and change", or "delete, and create another article with partly similar content". Since the outcome of both would be the same, I am more or less:
  • neutral. --85.187.44.131 12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm....it seems to me that at least a part of the "deletionist" activity here is a pretty obvious example of Croatophobia. I don't care much about personal contribs, but-isn't it suspicious that all I can see about a "speedy delete" contributor is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rockie21 So-what can we deduce from this ? What can we infer from the user's edits that are focused almost exclusively (ca. 10% of "other" edits are a tactical smokescreen) on Croatian-defamation activity ? And other, essentially clueless users, only repeat the mantra on the google counts ? So-what ? Google is a god ? Is this a joke ? Is this kangaroo-voting (maybe I've invented a neologism, kinda) meant to reveal anything save the aggressiveness of Greater Serbian propaganda & rather low level of comprehension capacity of "other" wikipedians ? Or, maybe it's something more at stake. I'd say that failure of the moral nerve hides itself, as usual, behind paragraphs. If someone is not convinced by explicit qotes reflecting a politically widespread opinion (for veracity of the translation, it's easy to employ Serbian wikipedians free of pan-Serbian disease)- then, I guess, you bureaucrats (and I mean it in an old-fashioned, ordinary way) are beyond remedy. Mir Harven 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This coming from a user with a long history of serbophobic edits, banned for disruption, 3RR etc - just check him out. Rockie21 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...shall I deign to answer this troll ? Hmmmmmm..no.Mir Harven 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, my comments don't matter much for the outcome of this "non-vote": whatever happens, it's clear that no consensus will be reached and the article will be kept as it is. But - for the record:
  • As for the widespread opinion - nobody doubts that irrational hostility against Croats exists; but Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth,
? Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Wikipedia:verifiability::
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is repeated quite a few times in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You took the quote "as is", which simply isn't fair. It's just a rephrasing of the old fact that the aim of an encyclopedia is collection of truthful and balanced data, not a sci research. It if were taken literally as the credo & purpose of this online encyclopedia, wiki should be best closed up immediately since it's nothing but mush. Mir Harven 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Sigh]. --85.187.44.131 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but with verifiability (quoting an authoritative source), and determining what is irrational hostility and what isn't is original research and POV.

Maybe you're right & I'm wrong, but- I understand that wiki is encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is all about truth. And, any serious encyclopedia quotes relevants sources, one way or another.

As for "irrational hostility"-is this a joke (I'm repeating myself, I know)? Do you think that quoted passages from Šešelj's magnum opus need a commission composed of specialists (social psychologists, psychiatrists,..) to determine whether the claims on criminal essence of Croatian national being etc. are examples of "irrational hostility" or not ? I thought the good ole common sense from Locke & the Declaration of Independence would unanimously decide that the irrational hostility is "self-evident" in the quoted passages. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke, in fact I think that it's very basic stuff. Nothing is self-evident if it's disputed (that's what NPOV is all about), and such situations are resolved by means of sources (that's what verifiability is all about). I'm sure that at least one person would disagree that Seselj's statements are irrationally hostile - namely, Seselj himself. Now, even if Seselj were the only sentient being on Earth espousing his own opinions, we aren't authorized to determine whether Seselj's POV or ours is the "correct" one and present that as the objective truth in an encyclopedia.
Sorry-but this is utterly preposterous, sheer nonsense. You're giving a new, much expanded meaning to the notion of scholastic aridity. Sometimes, a stick is just a stick (or whatever). Mir Harven 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All we can do is cite reputable sources. If this principle is violated, then, figuratively speaking, the result for Wiki is not a constitutional state a la Declaration of independence, but an anarchy or a dictatorship. Upon taking a look at Seselj's pyromaniac rubbish, I see that both my statement and wiki's policy can seem, at first sight, to be an expression of idiotic pedantry; the problem is that in many cases (such as people disputing the existence of the Croatian language, which - for the record - I, personally, recognize), it isn't that obvious whether something is part of a "phobia" or not. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've overlooked three facts: 1) Šešelj is the president of the strongest political party in Serbia and Montenegro 2) this is quoted from his acknowledged central masterwork which is proudly displayed at the party's site,[19] 3) paragraphs like Criminal essence of Croatian national being etc. are "ingredients" that constitute what the term Croatophobia designates-not some scribbling on the language or architecture Šešelj is a complete ignoramus about. So- don't twist the issue. Mir Harven 11:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Serbophobia article says "some Serbs feel that A, B, C are cases of Serbophobia", not just "A, B, C is Serbophobia", because otherwise some people will always argue about each particular example.

This discussion is about deletion of the article, not about its improvement or modification. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear; I wasn't saying that Croatophobia doesn't meet that requirement; currently, it does meet it and it needs no such improvement. I was just trying to illustrate my point that wiki isn't supposed to describe the opinions of the editors as true or false, and that's why people use weasel words. So your arguments of the type that "It's obvious (to any sane person) that this POV is correct and that one isn't" aren't valid. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even write that Hitler was irrationally hostile, it would be POV; you can write that scholars A, B, C say that Hitler was irrationally hostile. Sorry for writing the obvious.

See above. It's not about redefinition. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google isn't a god, but google shows to non-Croatian people that the term is practically non-existent.
We're not talking about frequency. Adultery is commited if your wife (or you, for that matter) has slept in another man's sack. For the definition of "adultery", it's of no importance had it happened once or 500 times. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Unlike adultery, a part of the essence of language is that it is (more or less exactly) replicated. It's not enough for a word to be used once, by one individual, to become part of the standard language. It has to gain some acceptance first. Otherwise, it's still a proto- or neologism. Here is a relevant quote from WP:NEO that I just discovered:
"Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

--85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are available, and I've given the link to the book-the most comprehensive one-volume Croatian dictionary. Now, if this means that the "permitted" neologisms should have wide Internet circulation, I completely disagree & don't see that it is in the definition of wiki standards. But, if read carefully, the above quote is contradictory: essentially, it says that a neologism can & cannot be used in the wiki titles for articles-and that the editors's personal inclinations don't play the role in the selection processes. So, where we are ? The ultimate criterion, what can be deduced from the above quote, is the verifiable secondary source. There are such sources, and they are eminent modern Croatian dictionaries, but no English dictionaries. And this is the core of the dispute: the phenomenon exists, it has been named in the language of the group it "deals with" & has not yet percolated in the mainstream English lexicography. It's as simple as that. Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come it isn't used by other Croats online? There's apparently no tradition - each time they use it, it's invented anew, as in the 2003 article that FrontLine supplied as a reference : "Croatophobia is the irrational fear of a country and hostility towards its culture. Croatophobia would be (bi bila) irrational fear of Croats and hostility towards Croatian culture". In other words, this is a neologism that is occasionally and independently coined and that people give their own definition (the author of the article actually makes it include many Croats). The truth is that the editors of the article are defining Croataophobia in the process of writing it (OR).

See above for the validity of this argument. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above for a further development of this argument. --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Bulgarian, I feel that българофобия sounds very weird - even though it has 2,590 hits (vs 43 for kroatofobija, hrvatofobija, and croatofobija, including repetitions and all). And, by the way, Bulgarophobia doesn't have a wiki article in either Bulgarian or English. --85.187.44.131 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is stopping you to write an article about Bulgarophobia ??? FrontLine 13:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Mir Harven 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point was that it is too unnatural and rare (albeit much more frequent than kroatofobija). Besides that, I don't have secondary sources (dictionaries, books or papers) about it, and I don't want to do OR. Last but not least, I think it's a very dull and, at best, useless thing to do. :) --85.187.44.131 16:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The number of Google hits does not prove anything, that's a lame argument. I feel that if Serbophobia can have it's own article then Croatophobia certainly can as well. The sentiment itself exists, the term is widely used in Croatian end Ex-Yu literature, and it is NOT a neologism. A exhaustive encyclopedia should strive for more articles, not less, and this topic certainly deserves it's own article. I don't see how it can be merged with any other Croatia-related article. --Dr.Gonzo 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep Real enough. Article includes examples, sources etc. Also, I found this word in at least one Croatian dictionary ("Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik", defined as "repugnance, hatred towards the Croats and things Croatian"), so the charges of neologism are pretty much off. --Elephantus 08:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a neologism in English language. Also, I am a little suspicios about your practically unverifiable claim, but it matters little, since this is English encyclopedia and policy on neologisms is clear. Rockie21 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Croatophobia may exist officially as an (very uncommon) word in Croatian, but that doesn't mean it's an established concept, commonly associated with particular facts. In fact, there's strong evidence that it isn't (the article with "croatofobija bi bila .../definition/", etc.). Thus, you can't go anywhere beyond a dictionary-style definition (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) without doing original research and inventing your own picture of what you think deserves being called so. Of course, the situation with Serbophobia is fairly similar, except that it is already a common concept - which doesn't mean that describing it without sources isn't OR that should in principle be deleted. But using Wiki to actually fashion and propagate a concept means, IMO, moving one step further from what is acceptable.--85.187.44.131 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Mir Harven above. It is a legitimate word. To use Google as a reference is silly, to put it mildly. --Zmaj 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mir Harven above. Just look at the contributions of user Rockie21:
20:00, 14 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia (vote change to speedy - can this be speedied?)
20:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
20:05, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
05:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
05:04, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
05:03, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia (→Croatophobia)
05:02, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 13
05:01, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
05:00, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatophobia
04:58, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Croatophobia
19:28, 5 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Vladimir Žerjavić
Are they just a sockpuppet, and their whole existance is to throw the article Croatophobia out. Google is not a true referencing tool, and the examples and references are selfexplanatory. Also isn't this just a tit-for-tat see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serbophobia Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serbophobia (second_nomination) FrontLine 09:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear such assertions from someone whose contributions consist in Serb-bashing, and who created this article as one of the first edits, which was pretty recently. Probably a sockpupet of Ante Perkovic - who just voted below, that is two votes from the same person. Rockie21 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serb bashing, give me a break. There is nothing inframatory, defamatory, racist, serbophobic in the artiles and edits i have done so far. They are all based on historical facts. I am no sockpupet, and how dare you accuse another user of being one without a single grain of proof. Probably you are a sockpupet, and attack is the best defense ? Isn't it ?? FrontLine 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And how dare YOU accuse other people? Sure, anti-serbian edits are fine, but anti-croatian edits are "inframatory (sic) defamatory, racist". Good to know where you stand. Rockie21 16:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you started it by accusing me of being a sockpupet. My edits are not anti-serbian, if you take it that way I feel sorry for you. FrontLine 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look a few lines above and see who started it. And all things go two way - the same way you say that your edits have nothing to do with serbophobia, can be applied other way around. Which brings us back to the topic, and that is that there is no proof / reference that anti-croatian sentiment from the article exists. You base your article on original research, which is, as you can see, flawed. This is no place for random speculations. What proof do you have that your alledged examples of "croatophobia" are not All based on historical facts (as you have put it yourself for your edits). Rockie21 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a deep breath, leave your mind open and you will see that croatophobia exists as much as serbophobia in the world around us, that is the sorry state of affairs. The references carry irrational hatred and fear, and croatophobia is a better term for it then anti-croatian sentiment. Well I have looked a few lines above, and from the evidence presented it looks like you have come to existance to push this debate. FrontLine 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, why are there no google hits? And the two newspaper articles that mention it, cooked it up for the purpose of the article - in one it means one thing, in other quite anoter thing. Like non-nationalist Croats who were branded "Croatophobes" for their lack of patriotism. And that is given as a reference for "feeling of hostility or hatred towards Croats". Come on. Give us a reliable source that the thing exists. Pointing to the alleged examples is original research. Pointing to sources that describe this supposed sentiment is quite different thing. There is no proof or even any indication that this is an established phenomenon. If web-forums are best you can come up with, excellent. Tom-Cruisophobia has better references than this. Rockie21 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go ahead and write the article about Tom-Cruisophobia, if you feel there is merit to it. FrontLine 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you think such an article would last? Oh, I forgot, WP:POINT is also one of the reasons to delete this article. Rockie21 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judge, jury and executioner all in a single package. But what if the article you have suggested and I dared you to write, becomes relevant... you will only know if you go ahead with it. FrontLine 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are also very versed in the different acronyms used in the wikispace to deserve such an innocent name and have contributed so little so far, so much of being ernest. FrontLine 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure have some points there, but you should realize that the fact that you do look a lot like a Serbian sock puppet (I could be wrong, but I'd say it with 99.99% certainty) doesn't add to your credibility. No offence meant. I was happy to discover that there are some very decent Serbian wikipedians (user:Duja, for instance), but it should be obvious to anyone that all this extensive sock puppetry causes damage to the reputation of your country, creating the depressing impression that there is a huge amount of Serbian cheaters (whereas I'm sure that it's actually just one or a couple of people who happen to have a lot of spare time and an inclination to cheat). --85.187.44.131 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you (and other editors) that WP:NPA is a policy here. Also, it is strange that you have such concerns, as you edit anonimously. Balot stuffing and things like that can be considered cheating, and that is what Croatian editors here are doing, not me. Comment on the issue, not the contributors. Note that you being supposedly Bulgarian does not automatically make you neutral, as you also hold bias, possibly anti-Serbian. Rockie21 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't attack you personally, I simply stated that you look like a sock puppet to me, and that sock puppetry is bad. You're right that the fact that you're probably a sock puppet doesn't mean you're wrong (since that is an ad hominem argument), but I'm sure many neutral editors are influenced by that fact nevertheless. Anyway, I'm glad I'm finally being accused of anti-Serbianism for a change. --85.187.44.131 15:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you elected yourself as the moderator of this discussion, and calling certain users certain names. Also, the claims that the Croatian editors are cheating is a sign of clutching any straw you can get as well as mud throwing. Hmm, straws and mud make bricks.... FrontLine 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Rockie21 if you abide with WP:NPA, the discussion on this page would be steered into a different direction FrontLine 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the concept is an invention of the author of this article, who is probably trying to counter the existence (in the real world) of Serbophobia. In other words, this is a case of competetive victimhood. Profnjm 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh...I'm not sure about the validity of this user's argument. The term "kroatofobija" is recorded in the most comprehensive one-volume contemporary Croatian dictionary[20], while I'm not sure about the term "srbofobija" (tho, I'm not conversant with current Serbian lexicography). So, as far as the recorded existence of the notion goes, "kroatofobija" is, to my knowledge, certainly more "established" than "srbofobija". As for Google-arguments, they've been dealt with. And, as for "the existence in the real world of Serbophobia"-this is a purely subjective opinion of this user, to put it mildly. Mir Harven 07:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...This is how Serbophobia is more established, and it's probably not in the way that you think I meant. I didn't think I'd be explaining this to a Croat, frankly. "Serbophobia" has been a Serbian bogey for forty years. Serbian intellectuals spent much of the 1980s and 1990s wallowing in their own belief that Croats, communists, Montenegrins, Slovenes et al. were Serbophobes. Entire books were written on the subject -- see the writings of Vuk Draskovic, Dobrica Cosic, etc.. I most definitely do NOT mean that any of those peoples truly and deeply hated Serbs. But the concept's existence is beyong dispute, even if it is not directly comparable to other phobias. For the rest, I don't deal in Google hits. Mir Harven seems to me to be a Croatian inventor -- the notion of Croatophobia does not exist in its pure form nor in the form I describe for Serbs. Profnjm 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks I've become a self-requoting junkie. Sigh. But, what the heck-I think this shows I'm not an inventor after all:Examples like [21], [22], speak for themselves-although, it would be even more visible if the Serbian academician Vasilije Krestić's article about "Croatian mustiness of the soul", or Vojislav Šešelj's magnum opus, downloadable in Serbian Cyrillic [23] were translated in English: here we read whole chapters on "Thousand years of Croatian barbarism" (p.486), "Croatian savagery in folk songs" (p. 495), "Animalistic urges of Croatian national being" (p. 529), "The Croat savage mentality is repugnant to the Italians" (p. 537), "Croatian people is guilty of Ustaša crimes", (p. 617), "Crime-the spiritual food for Croatian national being" (p. 627) etc, etc. Now- Šešelj's Radical party is the strongest party in Serbia and Montenegro (ca. 40% of the popular vote) & this is their leader and ideologue's masterwork. Mir Harven 12:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an accumulation of hateful remarks were the threshold, I might in fact deserve my own article, since in the past month I've been told by one editor that "I should be hanged as a dirty Jew because a bullet is too good for me," while an administrator accused me of anti-Semitism!
This is a logical fallacy here: your personal experiences are not on the same level with the ideological manifest of a leader of a political party that has been implicated in actions that are dutifully registered as examples of Croatophobia. Better comparison would be writings of Gobineau & Wilhelm Marr (sp ?) in the context of Judeophobia (which is, btw, etymologically more suitable word than anti-Semitism (Arab anti-Semitism & similar semantical suicides)).Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then go onto the Anti-Semitism article and start a new crusade. That's not my business. Besides, you surely realize that I was just making a point. Nonetheless, if you let me start an "anti-Profnjmism" article, I'll not stand in your way any longer here. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no phenomenon of "anti-Croatism," there is just an accumulation of chatter.
Oh, yeah. How do you know ? This is a rather far-fetching remark from someone who admits he's not very well informed on the issue. Certainly, some other people would not share your opinion. Mir Harven 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I admit such a thing? Thought not. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, even worse. Given the documentation presented & denying its ramifications and "actualization" in practice-you could only be classified as a Croatophobe (particular affiliation is of no importance). It's one thing to question the validity of writing a text with title containing a neologism that cannot be find in English language dictionaries & is rarely found via search engines. This is perfectly legitimate & rational objection (although, of course, I find it narrow & an example of pitiful workings of a bureaucratic mind.). To deny the existence of the phenomenon, or trivializing it with off-hand remarks no morally responsible person can take seriously-well, this is a completely different thing. Mir Harven 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Croatian accumulation of quotes from noted (!) Croatophobes like Leslie Gelb hardly qualifies Anti-Croatism as anything more than an exalted (and new) word for a run-of-the-mill thing. Profnjm 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the case of Serbophobia, it's not that it is real, but the imagined existence of it is so powerful a political force that it becomes a phenomenon in its own right. You really should stop quoting yourself, or every google citation will refer back to you.  ;) Profnjm 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your final point. Surely xenophobia deserves its own article. Profnjm 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Just like for Serbophobia! All of these nationalists was for keeping/deleting of Serbophobia, and now for deleting/keeping of this article. You are so comical and miserable! --Pockey 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are different things. I wasn't here for the Serbophobia debate. I can't imagine you mean that I'm comical or miserable. That wouldn't be civil, would it?Profnjm 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but all. Many of them, sorry for misunderstanding. --Pockey 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: well, "serbophobia" gets >1400 hits on my Google, while "croatophobia" gets 20 (5 shown, 2 of which from Wikipedia). This is bound to mean something... LjL 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: well, "serbophobia" gets >1400 hits on my Google, while "croatophobia" gets 20 (5 shown, 2 of which from Wikipedia). This is bound to mean something... Maybe that Serbs, generally, are more paranoid than Croats ? Mir Harven 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. Unfortunately, that fact supports deletion. Profnjm 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename. While the title is a neologism, most surely Ustashe left a trace of hatred, for example. However the articles on such touchy topics (ethnic conflicts) must be heavily documented. Mukadderat 16:03, 18 May 2006 (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.
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edge the Devilhunter

Prodded, removed. Does not assert satisfying the guidelines for inclusion of websites. brenneman{L} 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. brenneman{L} 05:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete as no notability asserted. BTW, as a side note, there are a number of suspect articles at Graphic_Smash that should probably also be considered if someone wants to take the time of AfDing them. Aplomado talk 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment More of a waste of time, actually. Graphic Smash is an subscription-based site and all of its webcomics are there by invitation. They are high quality and tend to get nominated for awards (we're talking Eisners, not just WCCA), which always makes AfDing them contentious. Sure, the webcomic rubber stampers will vote delete, but when the dust has cleared, usually what you end up with is a "no consensus" or "keep". As far as this comic goes, though, I'm undecided. I don't think it was on Graphic Smash for very long, and now is on the free host, Comic Genesis. I'd have to do more research to decide one way or the other. I was hoping the authors of this article would let the prod go through so I could do that research and possibly bring it back with more background info. Unfortunately, they chose to contest it; AfD digs a much deeper grave than prod. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 05:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 19:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability. Sandy 00:12, 18 May 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13&oldid=52959945"