Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borders before and after 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 delete. Sr13 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Borders before and after Yugoslavia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems like a needless fork of about a thousand other articles. All the information presented here would be more at home in places like Kingdom of Yugoslavia, History of Serbia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav wars, etc. Also, there has been heated dispute over the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article since the day it was created and has been a breeding ground for nationalistic conflicts ever since--we don't need redundant articles anyway, but especially not such troublemaking ones as this. K. Lásztocska 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nomination K. Lásztocska Review me? 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unclear criteria for the borders selected - the states immediately preceding Yugoslavia are not all included (to wit the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, an important predecessor to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later Yugoslavia is not included). Additionally a few randomly selected much older borders are included in the Serbia section. All in all a mess. Bigdaddy1981 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Also, the article has been from the very start a breeding ground for nationalistic disputes between pro and anti Serbian editors. The relevant information in this article belongs in the articles for Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. Parsecboy 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per above. Zello 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article has become monster. Rjecina 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Dahn 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is the current content of questionable encyclopedic value, but it also shows little room for improvement (unless we turn it into a copy of an already existing article, which is useless in a different way). KissL 13:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasoning above. Hobartimus 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - is WP:SNOW in order here? Bigdaddy1981 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Not even the creator of the article, Rjecina, wants to retain it. Let's just trash it. Parsecboy 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - User Rjecina just created new twin article (same as original version of this article), no matter that he voted here for its deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Borders_before_and_after_Yugoslavia What should be done about this problem? PANONIAN  22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it's on his user page though so it's not doing anyone any harm Bigdaddy1981 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, he's just keeping it in a "sandbox"-type thing in case there is any actually useful information in the article that can be later included in other articles. I wouldn't worry unless he tries to recreate the article (or something similar) in the mainspace. K. Lásztocska Review me? 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But he posted it into categories like real article, so it is obvious that he done this to avoid deletion process. PANONIAN  20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is: what is point of this deletion process if authors of deleted articles can simply to create them again with new title starting with "User:.../"??? Claim that this is just "harmless sandbox" really does not stand because it had all characteristics of deleted article, it could be also found on google search like deleted article, etc, etc. The main problem here is very controversial content of this "harmless sandbox" and such content really damage reputation of Wikipedia. Normal Wikipedia articles are usually written by users with opposite opinions and therefore if any article have controversial content these users could change it and make it more NPOV. But what we have here? We have "harmless sandbox" with controversial content and since there are users who do not want to watch there such content that damage reputation of Wikipedia, does it mean that they can change content of that sandbox or that they can start revert war there with author of the sandbox or that they are not obligated to respect 3rr here because this is not an article but just a "harmless sandbox"? Finally, what is a point of the fact that you all voted for deletion of this article when its author just created it again? Does it mean that he does not respect your votes? I really do not think that this was a purpose of the voting process (transformation of article into "harmless sandbox"). PANONIAN  22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd prefer not to speculate as to the reasons he's kept it, so I just now left him a message requesting that he explain. I'm a bit mystified by the whole thing myself.... K. Lásztocska Review me? 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have noticed this is 3rd article which I have put on my user page. There is clear writen that all this articles has been put for deletion because of different reasons which in my personal thinkings are wrong. I hope that we will all agree that this article on my user page and article which is for deleting are really different story. If I delete this article which is on my user page I will give to demands of nationalistic user which do not accept reality that all today states are having borders in time of Habsburg era end. I will not give to demand of person which is saying that Habsburg empire borders are only borders between administrative units and nothing else. I will not give to demand of user from Serbia which is refusing fact that Croatia-Slavonia has been kingdom inside Austro-Hungarian Monarchy with right to secede. Croatia-Slavonia has used this right to secede in 1918 and secesion has been accepted by Hungary which has after Croatian parlament vote declared death of Croato-Hungarian personal union. Point of this long nationalistic story is that I will not give to demand of person from Serbian Vojvodina which is not accepting fact that Vojvodina has been annexed to Serbia after conquest during end of Habsburg era. This article on my user page will not be returned on english wiki until 3-5 wikipedia on different language accept that article is good enough. Do not be afraid this will not happen this year because until now only 1 other wiki is having this article. We must not forget that in the end this article will be deleted on english wikipedia only because user PANONIAN has been against him (I speak that about article revision of 3 july). No other user has any problem with that article. --- Rjecina 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually no, there are more people that Panonian who think the article should be deleted...just scroll up for the list of names so far. My concern (and as far as I can tell, the concern of most of the others) is not about the specifics of treaties or the interminable arguments between Croats and Serbs, my concern is that the article is superfluous, redundant and moreover, a lightning rod for trouble. I suppose there's nothing wrong with working on a new version of the article in your userspace, but given the concerns raised here about the very usefullness of such a concept for an article, I wouldn't be surprised if even a new version got deleted as well. K. Lásztocska Review me? 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not worry I will not play in near future with this article. He will stay minimal 6 months (I think it will be much longer) on my user page. --- Rjecina 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. K. Lásztocska Review me? 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.