Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Serb countries and regions

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. Sandstein 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serb countries and regions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV and Serb nationalist coatrack spin off from History of the Serbs with almost no sources of any merit that actually discuss this idea as a cogent subject. Perfect example of the uses of TNT. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support An issue-laden WP:COATRACK that should have been deleted a long time ago. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is indeed an unfortunately framed article, which opens the door to the use of manipulative, anachronistic ideas, burdened with contemporary ideology, ahistorical nomenclature and terminology, using possessive forms of expression and ethnicization where it's highly inappropriate - within the Balkans scope it is like genuinely set for constant disputes.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons previously stated Shadow4ya (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not recall ever seeing other lists of countries claimed by an ethnic group, and I suspect there is a good reason for it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Aside from the current POV and content of the article (which are not grounds for deletion)~~, I am wondering how the nominator and other delete voters think this topic is substantially different from similar list articles on Jewish, Muslim, Greek, Armenian, Pashtun, Turkic (I could go on) states? Are these all nationalist coatracks? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current POV and content of the article falls into WP:POVFORK which is a WP:DEL-REASON. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ignore my incorrect statement - could someone address the main part of my question? Particularly concerning the topic and not the article as it stands. Most histories of the Serbian people seem to go through the various states that have included Serbs or been a Serbian nation-state. If the article was cleaned up, POV removed, reliable sources included, put in line with History of the Serbs etc, how is it any less notable than the above cited articles? I'm just trying to see what the base level of notability is seeing as there are quite a few articles in this format. Here are some more. To lay my bias on the table: I think 95% of current list articles should be deleted (including most of the ones I cited earlier). Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accepting that the POV issues need to be fixed and the article better sourced. Rightly or wrongly there are many list articles like this on Wikipedia. A quick look by me produced 23 similar articles all with corresponding pages or sections on the history of those people or nation (see below table). This makes the idea that this article just being a content fork a little hard to swallow. While I think all of these articles are fairly useless, if this is a convention on WP I see no reason why an article on the Serbs should be excluded. This probably just needs WP:CLEANUP unless a larger decision is made on the future of similar pages.
Keep As Vladimir has stated before me, we have other similar lists. What we need is more references and sourced material. Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above are essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. We are talking about this list, not the others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar List Articles
	History Article	List Article
Jewish	History	List
Muslim	History	List
Greek	History	List
Tengrist	History	List
Armenian	History	List
Pashtun	History	List
Turkic	History	List
Iranian	History	List
Sunni	History	List
Shia	History	List
Kurdish	History	List
Italian	History	List
Georgian	History	List
Belarusian, Russian, Ukranian	History	List
Hasidic	History	List
Confucian	History	List
Hindu	History	List
Jain	History	List
Zoroastrian	History	List
Maratha	History	List
Rajput	History	List
Brahmin	History	List
Albanian	History	List

Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing a number of other (WP:WHATABOUT), more or less, and in this case probably less, similar examples is never good argument.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in most contexts this is a weak argument but it is important to note how widespread a convention this is and that these types of articles can exist without being WP:POV or WP:COATRACK. At risk of making the same sin I will point to these discussions which came to the same conclusion.. I have already provided a small sample of the reliable sources available on this topic in my above comment which demonstrate it is obviously notable. Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the current POV issues are fixable problems. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2021 (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.