Deletion of Croatisation

Comment: The article needs to be expanded to make it more balanced. It does not violate  and it is not an attack page, hence we cannot delete it for being POV. If this is notable or not you really need to look at how many examples you would be able to find and of what importance those events are/were. Much of the above debate really should have taken place on the talk page rather than here. If you feel that Croats are being singled out with this article you might want to consider starting related articles for other countries. Also remember that #BATTLEGROUND
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I don't see the connection #BATTLEGROUND has with this case. As explained above, the issue is two fold - 1. use of a politically charged term for the title - I would argue that any ~isation article should be deleted or merged into corresponding demographic section for given country subject; 2. the creation of a separate stubb (instead of covering in relevant existing stubbs), the choice of title and examples, leads me to believe that purpose of the stubb is to push a particular propaganda line - for this reason I see it as .  I'ld appreciate it if you could explain why you don't see it as , and if my reasoning is flawed, point out where it is so.  Also, what is the relevance of the Anti-Croatian_sentiment stubb.  If it contravenes wiki rules then it should be subject to the same criteria and resolution process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:POINT||WP:POINT)

Comment: You are reffering to  when you mean #BATTLEGROUND.  is about not using the Wikipedia system such as policies and AfD to prove a point. That is disruptive when people do that (like keep taking the same article to AfD). What you are reffering to above is #BATTLEGROUND which I agree with. Articles should not be propaganda but you should also make sure that you apply that policy in all cases and not only when it is of benefit to youyr own views. Assuming good faith I know you would never do so and would view this fairly no matter what but it is a dangerous path for us to take because it allows a whole wave of possible AfD's on the same premise. I showed you the other article to show you how much it takes before an article is deleted. That article would most likely also make some people offended. If you want to merge the article then do so. You don't need to go to AfD to do so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOT||WP:POINT||WP:NOT)