Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russophobia

Russophobia

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers, internet sites and similar sources to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way.--Mbuk 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up - per this search --Addhoc 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also [1] and [2] search. Just as convincing. That is not an argument. --Hillock65 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate on a principle of precedent, so your searches aren't relevant. The link I've provided demonstrates that multiple authors have devoted chapters to this subject and therefore a reasonable article could be written. Addhoc 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same arguments stated at AfD for Estophobia. --Novelbank 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AfD arguments for Estophobia et al. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant delete When being informed about this AfD, I noticed that we we have a lot of articles along the same lines; anglophobia, francophobia, lusophobia, serbophobia, etc. A lot of these are obviously nothing but neologisms or merely contrived terms for "hatred of" or, as many similar articles are named, "anti-XXX sentiment". Changing the article titles would actually give the articles more merit. However, it should be noted that there's a huge difference difference between, for example, racism against Chinese, which sports a long and rich tradition of Western chauvinist nastiness, and borderline cases, like lusophobia, which smacks of almost as much pouty nationalism as estophobia. Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is not backed by verification in reliable sources, and most of its contents seem to be original research. And while this may be more a cleanup rather than a deletion issue, it also is extremely POV. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by Novelbank and Bigdaddy1981, the same principles apply as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, which also should be kept. I would support renaming this article here to Anti-Russian sentiment. Digwuren 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to make this move several times, but it was usally quickly reverted by lovers of stingy terminology. `'Míkka 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VanTucky. Oyster guitarist 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename as "anti-Russian sentiment" or something like that. Russophobia is too much of a neologism. The article is well cited and should be kepted. The nominator is misleading since he only mentioned a number of deleted articles of barely similar nature but not the many more similar articles that have been kept. Just look at the entries on Template:Discrimination2. --CGM1980 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and merge w/ Russo-X articles. I can't accept voting "keep" an article which has around 20 {fact} tags. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone went nuts with the fact tag, but there are 40 references in the article. --CGM1980 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there are masses of unsourced claims and arguments in there also. Bigdaddy1981 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Though, I believe the article needs some serious improvement, and should possibly be renamed "anti-Russian sentiment", with a redirect from "Russophobia. Padishah5000 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Perhaps the best idea would be to create a general list on the subject. List of Anti-national sentiments would be the name of the new article. It would have a section for each of the many different national sentiment articles that have been created. The more well known sentiments sections could have a link to there main article, and the lesss know sentiments just the section. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really good idea. The template solution, i.e. Template:Discrimination2, doesn't work very well. I personally hate that template as it contains everything and the kitchen sink. But pulling out an article List of anti-national sentiments would probably be a much better solution. There is a need to pull these topics together more than they are right now. --CGM1980 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know what creeps me out? Those little russian dolls that fit inside one another (shiver) ~ Infrangible 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article certainly needs some work, but historically the subject of Russophobia is a valid one. If it can be refocused on historical instances, like Britain in the Great Game and such, then it should stay. matt91486 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another case of radical deletionism. This term has been used and referenced by:

Anything with those many prominent references is a strong keep.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Russophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--Sefringle^Talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't trust the 1911 Britannica, I suggest you consult "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain" (Harvard University Press, 1950).[3] --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Xezbeth 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike the WP:POINT-violating Estophobia, this article goes well beyond the 1990s and looks at hundreds of historical cases. Likewise Russophobia is actually a genuine modern issue [4]. --Kuban Cossack 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why don't you attempt to delete Anti-Polish sentiment to test the reaction? Russophobia is a valid, well-established concept with 663 Google Books hits and 60,000 Google hits, including encyclopaedias ("combat a wild outbreak of Russophobia" in the 1911 Britannica[5]), monographs ("The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain", Harvard University Press, 1950), articles in major media outlets ("The West's New Russophobia Is Hypocritical" from The Guardian), and academic discussions (search for "Europe's periodic bouts of Russophobia" in The New York Times). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the article would based on academic sources like Britannica, monographs or publication in peer-reviewed journals, I would never nominate it for delition. But it is now a collection of tendentiously interpreted fact, exactly like Estophobia article whose deletion you supported. Double standards?--Mbuk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists and is not a neologism.--Urthogie 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Topic is noteworthy, but the article should be rewritten from scratch. Most of the article is unsourced and seems to be opinions, not facts. All of it is badly fractured into pieces, structure should be re-thought as well. Maybe move it into userspace until the article is ready for mainspace? Sander Säde 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you care to extend the same curtousy to Estophobia, and put that into namespace (and keep there for good if possible ;). Although I must say, some of stuff in that article that is used as genuine refrences, will only help to expand Russophobia to newer levels, like this nationalist garbage. Lovely text, Lukashenko is nothing but a Russian puppet, Communism was also a Russian plague (although neither Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Stalin were technically Russian) for which we Belarusans (not Belarusians btw) suffered. Forgetting to mention that Belarus was a founding republic of the USSR, and the first congress of the RSDRP took place in Minsk... extravagant :D --Kuban Cossack 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you don't read the AfD about Estophobia? I supported putting article into userspace for now there as well... Sander Säde 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is valid. A clean up might be needed but one does not delete an article to clean it up... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable topic with existent sources. Needs a rewrite not a delete.--Konstable 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]