Deletion of Estophobia

Comment: the artical is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The title fails , so at absolute minimum it needs a rename.  As written, an appropriate name for the article might be List of anti-Estonian remarks in Russian publications, which would obviously fail .  My delete vote is only weak because ''some'' of this information might be worth distilling and merging into an article along the lines of Russo-Baltic Relations as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:LIST)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: It's a neologism, if not an outright protologism.  First, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary.  Second, the discussion, such as it ''could be'' would focus on historical currents.  Since this is a brand new coinage with fewer citations that Slartybartfast, there isn't much that is possible there.  Instead, we can have, and do have, a nice bit of  going on.  Wikipedia is '''not''' a place to settle scores, for illuminating the world about the ultimate reality of "those people," or fixing the world.  It's an encyclopedia, and this article ''cannot'' be encyclopedic and must not be lexical
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEFIELD)

Comment: The whole article corresponds to . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: total  job here. And dang -- that's the most footnotes that I've seen bunched together. 22 at a time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates . I don't even know if Estophobia is even the proper term for the idea
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: this faeces per , inferiority complexes are not a justification for creating unencyclopedic POV articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: This phobia series require massive cleanup. Hostilities between nations are all over the history. Some of them very notable and long established, especially against colonial empires, and the articles have right to be. But they must be heavily cleaned. For example Francophobia which I looked for comparison with the discussed one, is a horrible collection of orangles and apples. Of all, Estophobia is the worst one, evidently dictated by the recent events liberally collecting each and every stupid thing published in Russian newspapers and rumors (!). Everyone knows that newspapers are not source of wisdom. Sensationalism arises not from ethnic hatred, but from desire to make money. The article vigorously denies various "accusations" while the reasonably NPOV article History of Russians in Estonia ssay that there are solid reasons under these accusations. The article twists facts and misquotes sources (out of good faith, I may assume this was the problem of translation). In summary, the authors of the article have heavy |conflict of interest and incapable to present the history in neutral manner. At the same time, I may point out the possible way to salvage some material from this text: the article Estonian-Russian relations may be a good place to provide a balanced POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: as worthless as Russophobia - which I am sure will be brought up as a  counterargument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: as , specifically : ''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. http://books.google.com/books?q=estophobia Similar arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriginal also apply here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:N)

Comment: Hideous POV-pushing mass of #SYN. A neologism to boot. If someone wants to write Estonian-Russian relations from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective, that ''might'' work. But this article needs to be scrapped
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)