Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Yugoslavia

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 merge to Balkan Federation. That is, merge selectively, to thje extent possible and sourceable. Sandstein 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Unverifiable original research - the article title doesn't seem to exist as a notable concept in the real world; at best, merge the late 1940s synthesized factoids into History of Yugoslavia. WP:PROD declined by author without any explanation and in a minor edit. Sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article title does exist as a notable concept in the real world - see the books link above which contain many references to it as a larger Yugoslavia incorporating Albania and Bulgaria. Warden (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Where do you see the notability of the concept? I see it mentioned as "discussion of a greater Yugoslavia" in the first hit, but it's "1991, Croatia and Slovenia seceded from the greater Yugoslavia" and "1990, the Slovene people voted in a plebiscite to separate from greater Yugoslavia" in the second and third hit. That's not the same concept, it's just talking about SFRY. The fourth and fifth hit say "Tito's old dream of a greater Yugoslavia". That's the same concept, but it's both used as a phrase and in reference to a dream. A concept is not automagically encyclopedically notable by being mentioned in passing by a lot of people - secondary sources discussing the specific dream are necessary to demonstrate its standalone notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be a good idea to merge the relevant details of this article into Yugoslavism which already deals with the doctrines of Yugoslav nationalism (notice the pipe). This article exists in Croatian too but on neither page is there a single source and I can personally find nothing on the search engines. The merge will be most amicable. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About article at Croatian Wikipedia, it was writen by me, more correctly, translated by me. I wasn't considering it's notability. I wanted to nominate this article for deletation there month ago, but I was banned. Just don't take Croatian article "Velika Jugoslavia" in consideretion while discussion deletation of this one. --Wusten fuchs 20:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and properly source. It's a notable concept and one with history behind it, but it does need sourcing. Night Ranger (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(additional comment) Here are some references (books and news searches) I found discussing "Greater Yugoslavia":

*[1]

*[2]

Please remember that to prove a topic notable sources must exist, not necessarily be present in the article (although that does help). AFD is not for cleanup. Night Ranger (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes the concept is notable, every editor on Yugoslav-related topics knows that. But the question is whether Greater Yugoslavia is that true notion. For example, the only way a unifying ideology can exist is if there is interest (albeit small numbers) from every party purported to be affected. We all know there are loyal Yugoslavs in the six former republics but what about Bulgaria? I have never encountered a Bulgarian to consider himself or his nation Yugoslav. If this is wrong, then we need names of the proponents among the Bulgarian nation who wishes to see Bulgaria part of the south Slavic state. They use the term yuzhni slaviyani (south Slavs) to include themselves within an umbrella group but never Yugoslavs per se. The actual concept which aimed to unify Bulgaria and Yugoslavia alongside other states was the Balkan Federation and I fear the original editor may have crossed wires. The ideas behind a Balkan federation was precisely that each unit functioned autonomously with a central administration holding ceremonial status. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've only posted generic google searches that are already linked above and one of which is also debunked above. The threshold of notability certainly isn't "it can be googled" - that's even worse than WP:ITEXISTS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please... you're really not this dense. My argument clearly is not that "it can be googled", but that a large number of reliable sources discuss this topic. Differentiating between a Google search that lists the reliable sources and copy/pasting those same sources here is pedantic. If you think all of the Reliable Sources I've found using a simple Google search are dubious, forgeries or otherwise unreliable, please explain. Otherwise, I've provided reliable sources and now it's up to the deletionists to explain why the sources aren't acceptable. Debunking one of them doesn't wipe the lot. The definition of WP:N is coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, and I've provided a multitude. Night Ranger (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not demonstrated a single clear example of significant coverage of this concept in any particular book - surely if you believe there's a multitude, one or two can be cited as a trivial example. As it is now, for all we know, they could all be talking about it in a tangential manner, and most of them could be using the phrase in a generic manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news article [3], specifically:

According to Tomic, the Ravna Gora movement advocated the idea of ‘a Greater Serbia within Greater Yugoslavia’. Greater Yugoslavia would comprise parts of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Italy and Albania and would be a federal state. It would comprise a Greater Serbia, a rump Croatia and a Greater Slovenia. Serbia and Southern Serbia (Macedonia and Kosovo) would be parts of Greater Serbia in the east and southeast. Bulgarian cities of Vidin and Custendil were to be annexed to it. Its southern territories would comprise Montenegro, Herzegovina and northern Albania. In the west, it would include Bosnia, western Dalmatia, Serb-inhabited parts of Lika, Kordun and Banija and a part of Slavonia. The Dalmatian coast from Sibenik to Montenegro would belong to Serbia too.

Some other news stories [4], [5] (Tito, the Balkan visionary who struggled for the creation of a "Greater Yugoslavia" that would include Albania, Bulgaria and Greece...), [6] (under heading "Carinthia"), [7] (After World War II Yugoslavia and Bulgaria wanted to establish a Greater Yugoslavia but it failed because Bulgaria proposed that the two states should form a new federal republic, while Yugoslavia wanted Bulgaria as the seventh member state). Night Ranger (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked through all of them, and they all seem somewhat tangential - for example the university professor's testimony at the ICTY is good, but it's primarily about Greater Serbia, which is a separate topic. The 1987 Toronto Star article seems specifically about this since it talks about it in the preface, but that one is actually marked as "Section: LETTER". Doesn't that mean that it was actually a reader's letter? Besides, since we're dealing with history here, I think a reasonable standard of significant coverage would be at least a secondary source from the said field, rather than news talk. By this measure, we could have separate articles about a lot of ideas discussed in politics daily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be deleted since there is no serious literature (or any literature) that deals with this subject. Such concept doesn't exist, it is made up by creator of this article. Map is also false. This article serves to the purpose of ridiculing Wikipedia. --Wusten fuchs 19:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds about 876 books discussing Greater Yugoslavia. Night Ranger (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds about 876 books mentioning Greater Yugoslavia in different context. --Wusten fuchs 23:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Night Ranger (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To all, doesn't Balkan Federation cover everything? Can it not be added that this was also an irredentist goal for Greater Yugoslav proponents? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be fine and allow that article to expand as well. If we don't have enough for a stand alone article we certainly have enough for a section in that article on Greater Yugoslavia. Night Ranger (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that, then cite the books you have found - or some of them if there are too many. The best course of action to take then will be not to delete Greater Yugoslavia but to redirect it to Balkan Federation. You can display "also Greater Yugoslavia" close to the bold headword. Can a consensus be reached for this? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(note to closing admin) if this is closed as delete can you please userfy the article to my userspace so I can rework it into the Balkan Federation article with the references found? Night Ranger (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Federation#After Comintern period looks like a match. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement to above. The part is very small and could do with a good paragraph extra within the same article, and there we have interest from Georgi Dimitrov which is something if not anything from the other side. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:41, 27 November 2011 (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.