Deletion of Srbosjek (knife) (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom. Article fails  due to total lack of |reliable sources. Article has already been deleted once http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Srbosjek after its first AfD, only to be reincarnated for, as far as I can tell, purely political reasons
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: To all those who claim that sources from such authors as Mladenko Colic or Vladimir Dedijer, both university professors, are unreliable, i suggest they read . Moreover, Mladenko Colic's book (JSTOR review http://www.jstor.org/pss/2495700, the book is used even in Zagreb http://www.fakultet.fpzg.hr/studiji/politologija/predmeti/IV_semestar/suvremena_hr_pol_povijest_II.aspx, today, at Croatia's biggest university so the book is clearly widely accepted (clearly, even by Croatian scholars) in academic discourse, which indeed is not surprising, as Colic was a leading expert in Ustasha military). Vladimir Dedijer was a figure of highest format, history professor in UK and USA (and Yugoslavia), member of Russell Tribunal, certainly a relevant source. The Jasenovac museum from SFRY era, that had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits, clearly is also a relevant source, and so per wikipedia rules, the sources given are neither fringe nor unreliable, as some users are trying to agressively assert in their POV. One cannot deny the ugly truth of henious Ustasha atrocities just by erasing articles that are supported by accounts that meet the standards wikipedia set forth
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The subject is an unpleasant one, and no doubt offensive to modern Croat sensibilities, but it appears to be supported by adequate academic sources.  Since this is a subject concerning a non-English speaking country, it is not surprising that English-language sources are few.  I note that some one (above) cited further non-English sources.  It would be useful if these were added to the article, perhaps merely as a bulletted list at the head of the refrneces section.  If there are issues over  (and I am not sure that there are), the appropriate course is to tag the article, not to nominate it for AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Despite the lengthy post above by Terse, sketches are not reliable sources. Discussions at Serbian wiki are not reliable sources. Where are the |reliable sources that meet Wikipedia policies on |verifiability that say there was a knife called a ''srbosjek''? I have checked the links you have provided and I just can't find any. If you can find these sources, everybody will be happy and this discussion will be over. Please provide them. And please bear in mind everyone that '''this discussion is not a vote. The article is going to be either kept or deleted on the basis of whether well established standards for articles are or are not met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: because article is writen against wikipedia |reliable sources rules and because of recreation of deleted article. One of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is '''Recreation of deleted material''' and because article has been deleted in January 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Srbosjek situation is clear.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)