Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:22, 11 July 2007

Estophobia

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers 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. `'Miikka 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN: unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position, said position being that estophobia/anti-Estonianism is a notable phenomenon/problem. Taken item-by-item, this is a mere list of newspaper clippings about a bunch of different events. The only thing holding them together is the page author's (not the sources') contention that they're examples of the phenomenon he posits to exist. "Estophobia" has no GBooks hits. [1] Similar arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal also apply here. cab 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Somehow you fail to mention it has Google Scholar hits [2], which are far more important then Google Books hits. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google scholar gives one paper mirrored in two locations which judging from the title "Citizenship and borders: Legacies of Soviet empire in Estonia" is not primarily about the topic of "Estophobia". Compare this to prejudices like Anti-Japanese sentiment [3] or [4] Islamophobia which have whole books written about them. cab 08:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as worthless as Russophobia - which I am sure will be brought up as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS counterargument. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with cab. Recognising that this is a notable topic, I feel it would be fair to give some time to the main author to improve the article, even though honestly I don't feel "some time" will help much, considering the current shape of the article. POV-pushing looks too strong at this point in the article. --BeautifulFlying 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the POV being pushed, so it can be dealt with. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when did we use AfD to solve content disputes? There is atleast one scholarly paper published on the "Estophobia" phenomenon [5]. Note the originator of this AfD also started a similar action against Nashism with similar arguments Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nashism. After Nashism was deleted, he subsequently recreated it with new content. If content is the issue, then tag the article appropriately and edit it, don't abuse the AfD process. Martintg 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FUI, AfD discussed exactly content of articles, not their title, editors, AfD nominators, etc., according to wikipedia rules. You are not novices here and must know the rules already. Writing essays is the basic forbidden things. Starting from reputable sources that define the notion is the best way staaying out of trouble. Wikipedia rules specifically say that articles may be recreated in a way consistent with rules. And I recreated it after waiting, like, two weeks during which the passionate defenders did nothing. And I don't want to tag it, I want to delete it, exactly because IMO its content has no place neither in wikipedia, nor in its edit history, which is visible to everyone. `'Miikka 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original article Nashism was a five line stub, with a reference to a peer reviewed journal. So there wouldn't have been much of a history. Only you had an issue with the source not being reputable, even though most British university libraries seem to to think it reputable enough for their collections. Stubs, as I recall, are intended to be placeholders of notable topics with an implict invitation to all to expand the article. Your main argument for deletion was that it is a newly-coined neologism. So two weeks after deletion you decide that is no longer a newly-coined neologism and decide to re-create it? Martintg 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. I didn't re-create it. You still fail to see the difference between the article title and article topic. The deleted article's topic was uneducated speculations of a thoroughly nonnotable person published in an obscure magazine. `'Miikka 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A nasty comment: I can't but notice some double standards here [6]. Or have you just changed your mind, which you're certainly entitled to? Duja► 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole article corresponds to WP:SYNTH. It is like reading the titles of all 22 first refs and come out w/ Estophobia. Most of the titles mean just that there are frictions instead of a concerted campaign. Some of the contents can be merged w/ Foreign relations of Estonia or have something like [Russian-Estonian relations]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the first 22 sources refer to the phenomenon, and most mention a concerted campaign. Anyway, what kind of reference do you believe would satisfy your concerns? I could try and find one. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, total WP:SYNTH job here. And dang -- that's the most footnotes that I've seen bunched together. 22 at a time?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot speak for Digwuren, but as the article is obviously a work in progress, I suspect he wanted to collect sources to one place. Or, as he has been (almost always baselessly) accused of POV and OR, he wanted to make sure no one can accuse of that again. Sander Säde 06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the latter than the former. RJ CG, a well-known Estophobe, attacked the page yesterday -- hours after its creation -- and claimed that the concept doesn't exist. Thus, I made a selection of more than 10,000 articles, found by a few Google runs, on a diversity basis, and attached some of these sources to the lead. (See also Talk:Estophobia#Fact? Fact!) It won't stay that way. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the artical is WP:SYNTH. Oyster guitarist 32:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 02:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better nominate all these articles for deletion too: Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Catalanism,Sinophobia, Anglophobia, Anti-Europeanism, Francophobia, Anti-German sentiment,Indophobia, Anti-Iranian sentiments, Anti-Irish racism, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Antisemitism, Anti-Malay racism, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Lusophobia, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Antiziganism, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Russophobia, Serbophobia, Anti-Turkism Martintg 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, let's nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination for deletion too, they are actually promoting the creation of this kind of article within Wikipedia! Martintg 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a cursory examination of a random selection of th articles associated with WikiProject Discrimination suggests that most of them are the worst kind of unsourced and/or OR POV bilge. I'd be glad to see others - including many of the articles you mention above - brought here for AfD. Bigdaddy1981 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent idea! I didn't even know about WP:WPDISC, but if Bigdaddy's assertion is correct, and if they are perpetuating this kind of stuff, they should better be MfDed. As for your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, we're trying to get rid of those, one by one. Anti-Greek, Bosniaks, Croatian and Hungarian, all conceived in the same manner as this one, WP:SYN collection of historical facts, factoids and sore grapes. Serbophobia and Anti-Romanian sentiment did survive in this turn. Oh, yes, and Delete, by this reasoning. Duja► 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a wonder you didn't know it. Somebody has categorised this AfD under Science and technology, and it seems likely that's how you got here. The topic, obviously, is about humanities instead, and it is to be expected that a hard sciences' geek would be unfamiliar with humanities. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep they even teach this in school here. It has been researched, and indeed is official word. The article is expanding, and so there are some unrelated refs and some refs missing. This is normal with a new stub article. About notability. If one little pacifist country has been declared "Russian biggest enemy" by several polls and researches in last several years, it's definitely notable. If this is deleted I request the deletion of Russophobia aswell. The latter is clearly synthesized: collection of articles where someone says "russians suck". Suva 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a) its way to young of an article to condemn yet. b) It is an article a about a valid phenomenon. To those saying its POV, It is an article about a particular POV, Estophobia. If POV can be decribed more neutraly then please improve the article.--Alexia Death 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has brought the term POV yet. It concerns WP:SYNTH instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the term POV earlier, to emphasize that synthesis is used to push a certain POV in the article. But I admit that generally WP:SYN is a much bigger (and more relevant) issue here. At the same time I don't mind at all to give some time (as I mentioned above) to the authors to improve the article (that in its current shape definitely deserves to be deleted). --BeautifulFlying 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthily, Mikkalai issued the AFD less than a day after the article's creation, while it had the "Under construction" tag on it. It isn't surprising that it wasn't in the best of shapes at that time. Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Suva. This AfD is an obvious attempt to censor Wikipedia by wiki-lawyering. As mikkalai is a long-time contributor to Russofobia and has not wanted to delete that article, then I cannot see this in any other way except as a bad-faith nomination. Article has barely been started, but has good and strong references, describing a well-known phenomenon. Word is not a neologism, it is used in scientific articles [7] and news, as can seen by references. Cannot be called WP:OR, as it is well-referenced and no examples of WP:SYNTH has been given, so that can be discarded as well. Sander Säde 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism. Another trollish attempt at original research aimed at making a point Molobo-Bonaparte-style. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. -- Magioladitis 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not neologism. It's less used in english language, more in estonian and russian (for obvious reasons), but it is correctly formed phobia name also accepted. But one thing can noone deny. That the problem discussed in the article is true, and definitely needs some notion in wikipedia. Can anyone argue? Suva 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That very well might be the case, but the fact that the subject of discussion is interesting does not override essential WP policies such as WP:OR. When the subject is notable, but the term is not, the article being about the term, that article constitutes original research. IgorSF 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism; Google search results are a pretty good indication of the degree of use of this term. Appears to be a clear application of WP:SYNTH, as per all citing above. To respond to those mentioning a comparison with Russophobia, the latter term is actually known on its own (i.e., outside of Wikipedia), and I have personally heard it, whereas the subject of this AfD I have not.IgorSF 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a neologism, used in scholarly articles, see [8]. Has been shown before, seems that previous three contributors did not read the discussion and should therefore change their votes. Sander Säde 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that google returns more results of Russophobia than Estophobia doesn't really prove the word being neologism. It only proves that there is more people who hate russians. Which is also obvious because there is much more russians and more reasons to hate them than estonians. Also estophobia has become widely popular just lately, so the popularity of this word will grow. Suva 08:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your hate talk ("there is more people who hate russians", etc) is cheap and illustrates that your group views Wikipedia as a soapbox for making highly tendentious, divisive edits. I assume it is aimed at those who are not aware about such charming pages of Estonian history as the Klooga concentration camp and like to picture it as a peaceful, harmless little country. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Ghirla, even I would not have expected you to go as low as this. So, Nazis created Klooga concentration camp, therefore there is no Estophobia? Great logic! Demonstrates very clearly that estophobia exists and is present here in Wikipedia as well, therefore the article is valid and needed. Sander Säde 08:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that there was any German personnel involved in the maintenance of the Estonian concentration camps. Estonia was the only country of Europe where the Holocaust concentration camps were more or less voluntarily run by the native population. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is just plain lie and hate speech. Estonian personnel were not "volunteers", nor did they run the camps. See that nice article you linked, "The Vaivara camp complex was commanded by German officers (Hans Aumeier, Otto Brennais, and Franz von Bodman) /.../" As for volunteers... if you have a choice, be a camp guard or get shot, that is definitely volunteering. Involvement of Estonians was no more prominent then the involvement of locals in Ukraine or Latvia. Your accusations are purely racist. And, like Suva said, enough of this here. You've clearly shown your estophobia and reason for supporting deletion, I don't think you can add anything else more supportive for keeping the article in question. Sander Säde 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of shared responsibilities? Yes, the Nazis are primarily responsible for the extermination of 99% Jews in Estonia. However, to the degree that nationals from subject nations participated and the lack of duress involved, these subject people are jointly responsible. And Estonians according to all accounts, absolutely stood out as far as numbers and unsollicited enthousiasm was concerned. You have just demonstrated why people are right to be worried about the inability of Estonians to face up to their past. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, such inability as prime minister apologizing for actions of those Estonians involved in Holocaust, opening of the Holocaust memorial and prime minister & president opening of the synagogue? Gee, what horrible things to do! I must have missed when Putin apologized for Soviet crimes in Estonia... Sander Säde 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And opening a monument to the Waffen SS on the very next day... --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bring down your little fantasy world, but there are no monuments for Waffen-SS in Estonia. Sander Säde 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Ghirlandajo is doing here is WP:TROLLing in hope to derail the discussion. And any lie is good for the holy purpose of trolling, right? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD page is not a good place for content dispute as such. So I recommend you to stop discussing different theories of Estonian history here and concentrate on the article instead. Suva 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nazism, btw, is not a definition of nationality, but one of views. All nations big enough have some small group of people, that the rest are deeply ashamed for, that are Nazis by views. Even Your nation has them. Condemning a whole nation for the actions of a few is a sign of phobia against that nation. Also, nationality is not a matter of choice, views are. --Alexia Death 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was Soviet blood that destroyed 80 percent of the German army, a remarkable feat that the current "Western Alliance" in its more disingenuous moments conveniently forgets. Estonia for its own part was such an enthusiastic member of the Third Reich that Hitler allowed it to form its own Waffen SS regiment, the Narwa, under Reichs-Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler. Contrary to historical revisionists, this regiment was not formed of conscripts. It was called "Freiwilligen" because it was formed of volunteers. The war crimes of the Waffen SS are well documented. In 2002, the "compassionate" Estonian government, claiming insufficient evidence, refused to prosecute Estonian veterans accused of crimes against humanity by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In 2005, Estonians attempted to put up a statue to their soldiers who fought under Germany. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate talk? I am sorry, but it was not intended as such. It is clear fact that there are more people who hate russians than those who hate Estonians. Why? Because there are more russians than estonians, russia is definitely more well known. Would be saying "More people hate Microsoft Windows than SkyOS?" hate talk aswell? More reasons to hate? Russia has been and is involved in several wars. Even if they were for good cause, war always "steps on someones toes". Estonian current military activity is connected solely with peace missions (which also unfortunately sometimes step on someones toes, but clearly on smaller scale). Suva 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fayssal and others, and as per my standards expressed in similar cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? Digwuren 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination is in bad faith, and the article is still young. (Even now, it hasn't reached its first 24 hours!) Ghirlandajo's remarks attest to the reality of the phenomenon, and various content improvements are already being worked towards. Digwuren 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Delete''' as worthless as [[Russophobia]] - which I am sure will be brought up as a [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] counterargument. [[User:Bigdaddy1981|Bigdaddy1981]] 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Comment''': I agree with [[User:CaliforniaAliBaba|cab]]. Recognising that this is a notable topic, I feel it would be fair to give some time to the main author to improve the article, even though honestly I don't feel "some time" will help much, considering the current shape of the article. POV-pushing looks too strong at this point in the article. --[[User:BeautifulFlying|BeautifulFlying]] 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:* Please state the POV being pushed, so it can be dealt with. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Since when did we use AfD to solve content disputes? There is atleast one scholarly paper published on the "Estophobia" phenomenon [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=estophobia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws]. Note the originator of this AfD also started a similar action against [[Nashism]] with similar arguments [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nashism]]. After [[Nashism]] was deleted, he subsequently recreated it with new content. If content is the issue, then tag the article appropriately and edit it, don't abuse the AfD process. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 **FUI, AfD discussed exactly '''content''' of articles, not their title, editors, AfD nominators, etc., according to wikipedia rules. You are not novices here and must know the rules already. Writing essays is the basic forbidden things. Starting from reputable sources that define the notion is the best way staaying out of trouble. Wikipedia rules specifically say that articles may be recreated in a way consistent with rules. And I recreated it after waiting, like, '''two weeks''' during which the passionate defenders did '''nothing'''. And I don't want to tag it, I want to delete it, exactly because IMO its content has no place neither in wikipedia, nor in its edit history, which is visible to everyone. `'[[user:mikkalai|Miikka]] 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 16: / Line 17: @@
 *****A nasty comment: I can't but notice some double standards here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSerbophobia_%28fifth_nomination%29&diff=136092857&oldid=136026016]. Or have you just changed your mind, which you're certainly entitled to? [[User:Duja|Duja]]<span style="font-size:70%;">[[User talk:Duja|►]]</span> 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - The whole article corresponds to [[WP:SYNTH]]. It is like reading the titles of all 22 first refs and come out w/ Estophobia. Most of the titles mean just that there are ''frictions'' instead of a concerted campaign. Some of the contents can be merged w/ [[Foreign relations of Estonia]] or have something like [Russian-Estonian relations]. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:* All of the first 22 sources refer to the phenomenon, and most mention a concerted campaign.  Anyway, what kind of reference do you believe would satisfy your concerns?  I could try and find one. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''', total [[WP:SYNTH]] job here. And dang -- that's the most footnotes that I've seen bunched together. 22 at a time?! [[User:TenPoundHammer|<span style="color:green">Ten&nbsp;Pound&nbsp;Hammer</span>]] • <sup>((([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Broken&nbsp;clamshells]] • [[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otter&nbsp;chirps]])))</sup> 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Comment'''. I cannot speak for Digwuren, but as the article is obviously a work in progress, I suspect he wanted to collect sources to one place. Or, as he has been (almost always baselessly) accused of POV and OR, he wanted to make sure no one can accuse of that again. [[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:gray;font-size:15px">Sander&nbsp;Säde</span>]] 06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:* It's more the latter than the former.  [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]], a well-known [[Estophobia|Estophobe]], attacked the page yesterday -- hours after its creation -- and claimed that the concept doesn't exist.  Thus, I made a selection of more than 10,000 articles, found by a few Google runs, on a [[diversity]] basis, and attached some of these sources to the lead.  (See also [[Talk:Estophobia#Fact? Fact!]])  It won't stay that way. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' the artical is [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:Oysterguitarist|Oyster]][[User talk:Oysterguitarist|'''guitarist''']] 32:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 02:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:*What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 :* Better nominate all these articles for deletion too: [[Anti-Americanism]], [[Anti-Arabism]], [[Anti-Armenianism]], [[Anti-Australian sentiment]], [[Anti-Canadianism]], [[Anti-Catalanism]],[[Sinophobia]], [[Anglophobia]], [[Anti-Europeanism]], [[Francophobia]], [[Anti-German sentiment]],[[Indophobia]], [[Anti-Iranian sentiments]], [[Anti-Irish racism]], [[Anti-Italianism]], [[Anti-Japanese sentiment]], [[Antisemitism]], [[Anti-Malay racism]], [[Anti-Mexican sentiment]], [[Anti-Pakistani sentiment]], [[Anti-Polish sentiment]], [[Lusophobia]], [[Anti-Quebec sentiment]], [[Antiziganism]], [[Anti-Romanian discrimination]], [[Russophobia]], [[Serbophobia]], [[Anti-Turkism]] [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::* While we are at it, let's nominate [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination]] for deletion too, they are actually promoting the creation of this kind of article within Wikipedia! [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 24: / Line 28: @@
 :::*'''Comment''' - Excellent idea! I didn't even know about [[WP:WPDISC]], but if Bigdaddy's assertion is correct, and if they are perpetuating this kind of stuff, they should better be MfDed. As for your [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST]] argument, we're trying to get rid of those, one by one. Anti-[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism|Greek]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Bosniak sentiment (second nomination)|Bosniaks]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Croatian sentiment|Croatian]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment|Hungarian]], all conceived in the same manner as this one, [[WP:SYN]] collection of historical facts, factoids and sore grapes. Serbophobia and Anti-Romanian sentiment did survive in this turn. Oh, yes, and '''Delete''', by this reasoning. [[User:Duja|Duja]]<span style="font-size:70%;">[[User talk:Duja|►]]</span> 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+::::*It isn't really a wonder you didn't know it.  Somebody has categorised this AfD under ''Science and technology'', and it seems likely that's how you got here.  The topic, obviously, is about humanities instead, and it is to be expected that a hard sciences' geek would be unfamiliar with humanities. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Keep''' they even teach this in school here. It has been researched, and indeed is official word. The article is expanding, and so there are some unrelated refs and some refs missing. This is normal with a new stub article. About notability. If one little pacifist country has been declared "Russian biggest enemy" by several polls and researches in last several years, it's definitely notable. If this is deleted I request the deletion of [[Russophobia]] aswell. The latter is clearly synthesized: collection of articles where someone says "russians suck". [[User:Suva|Suva]] 04:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 29: / Line 34: @@
 :*Nobody has brought the term POV yet. It concerns [[WP:SYNTH]] instead. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up®''</sup></font>]]</small> 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::*I brought up the term POV earlier, to emphasize that synthesis is used to push a certain POV in the article. But I admit that generally WP:SYN is a much bigger (and more relevant) issue here. At the same time I don't mind at all to give some time (as I mentioned above) to the authors to improve the article (that in its current shape definitely deserves to be deleted). --[[User:BeautifulFlying|BeautifulFlying]] 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::*Noteworthily, [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] issued the AFD less than a day after the article's creation, while it had the "Under construction" tag on it.  It isn't surprising that it wasn't in the best of shapes at that time. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', per Suva. This AfD is an obvious attempt to censor Wikipedia by wiki-lawyering. As [[user:mikkalai|mikkalai]] is a long-time contributor to [[Russofobia]] and has not wanted to delete that article, then I cannot see this in any other way except as a bad-faith nomination. Article has barely been started, but has good and strong references, describing a well-known phenomenon. Word is not a neologism, it is used in scientific articles [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&tab=ws&channel=s&client=firefox-a&hl=en&hs=sLp&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=estophobia] and news, as can seen by references. Cannot be called [[WP:OR]], as it is well-referenced and no examples of [[WP:SYNTH]] has been given, so that can be discarded as well. [[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:gray;font-size:15px">Sander&nbsp;Säde</span>]] 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. A [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-49,GGLG:en&q=estophobia non-notable neologism]. Another trollish attempt at original research aimed at making a point Molobo-Bonaparte-style. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 07:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 34: / Line 40: @@
 :* '''Comment:''' It's not neologism. It's less used in english language, more in estonian and russian (for obvious reasons), but it is correctly formed phobia name also accepted. But one thing can noone deny. That the problem discussed in the article is true, and definitely needs some notion in wikipedia. Can anyone argue? [[User:Suva|Suva]] 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::* That very well might be the case, but the fact that the subject of discussion is interesting does not override essential WP policies such as [[WP:OR]]. When the subject is notable, but the term is not, the article being about the term, that article constitutes original research. [[User:IgorSF|IgorSF]] 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::*What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' as neologism; Google search results are a pretty good indication of the degree of use of this term. Appears to be a clear application of [[WP:SYNTH]], as per all citing above. To respond to those mentioning a comparison with [[Russophobia]], the latter term is actually known on its own (i.e., outside of Wikipedia), and I have personally heard it, whereas the subject of this AfD I have not.[[User:IgorSF|IgorSF]] 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. Not a neologism, used in scholarly articles, see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=estophobia&btnG=Search]. Has been shown before, seems that previous three contributors did not read the discussion and should therefore change their votes. [[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:gray;font-size:15px">Sander&nbsp;Säde</span>]] 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 45: / Line 52: @@
 *::::::::: And opening a monument to the Waffen SS on the very next day... --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *:::::::::: Sorry to bring down your little fantasy world, but there are no monuments for Waffen-SS in Estonia. [[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:gray;font-size:15px">Sander&nbsp;Säde</span>]] 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+::::::::::* What [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] is doing here is [[WP:TROLL]]ing in hope to derail the discussion.  And any lie is good for the holy purpose of trolling, right? [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *:::: AfD page is not a good place for content dispute as such. So I recommend you to stop discussing different theories of Estonian history here and concentrate on the article instead. [[User:Suva|Suva]] 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *::::: Nazism, btw, is not a definition of nationality, but one of views. All nations big enough have some small group of people, that the rest are deeply ashamed for, that are Nazis by views. Even Your nation has them. Condemning a whole nation for the actions of a few is a sign of phobia against that nation. Also, nationality is not a matter of choice, views are. --[[User:Alexia Death|Alexia Death]] 09:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 51: / Line 59: @@
 *'''Delete''' as per Fayssal and others, and as per my standards expressed in similar cases. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' No keeps sufficiently refute the allegation of OR. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|&#169;]]</font></b></sup> 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+:*What kind of references do you believe would satisfy your concerns? [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy keep'''. The nomination is in bad faith, and the article is still young.  (Even now, it hasn't reached its first 24 hours!)  [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]]'s remarks attest to the reality of the phenomenon, and various content improvements are already being worked towards. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)