Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian Cultural Club – Skopje


 * 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   no consensus. MuZemike 23:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Cultural Club – Skopje

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable political club, no independent media coverage. Of the seven sources currently cited in the article, only one is independent of the club itself, and that's just a local news report on some other friendly association's website which mentions participation of this club in a small local event in passing. Article was also misused for political WP:COATRACK advocacy (now removed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  10:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — The suggested proposal rationale does not quite correspond to the present version of the article. Apcbg (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I uphold the nomination. None of the recent additions constitute multiple, non-trivial media coverage. The organisation published some press releases about two events that are presumably major topics of public discussion in the Macedonian media at the moment (the ideological controversy over a newly published encyclopedia, and the havary of a boat on Lake Ohrid), but none of which is inherently related to the organisation itself. It got a few local media to quote those press releases as part of their coverage of those events. That's not "multiple non-trivial" coverage of the organisation as such, in my view. Still fails WP:ORG ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, the monument proposal (not a press release at all) submitted by the Club to the Mayor of Ohrid is surely “inherently related to the organisation itself”, and indeed reported by secondary sources as an initiative of the organization's.
 * Second, the Club’s lobbying effort over the Spaska Mitrova case (a facsimile of the answer the organization got from the European Commission is given in their website) is no press release too.
 * Third, neither is a press release the Club's activity (reported by secondary sources) over the issue of Bulgarian military graves in the Republic of Macedonia.
 * And finally, the cited entry in the official site of the Bulgarian State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad (a secondary source) is about the organization itself not about events. Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these contradicts what I said. The list on the Bulgarian State Agency site is just a directory entry, hence not "non-trivial" coverage. The Spaska Mitrova case is just of the kind I described: a current issue that's in the news independently of this organisation, and the organisation has simply been jumping on the bandwagon making public announcements about it, and succeeding in having a few of them mentioned in press reports. Whether they make those public statements technically in the form of "press releases" or open letters to officials or through statements on their website or whatever else is immaterial. The letter by the European Commission is utterly trivial, and of course it's not a "publication" (by the Commission) either, so again no independent coverage. Non-trivial coverage would be press reports fully dedicated to the organisation as such, describing its function, aims, foundation, and that from an outside independent perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your definition of non-trivial coverage ("Non-trivial coverage would be press reports fully dedicated to the organisation as such, describing its function, aims, foundation, and that from an outside independent perspective.") is not what WP:ORG says:
 * "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."
 * "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories."
 * and even "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
 * Nowhere does WP:ORG separate the coverage of organization's activities from the coverage of its structure, aims etc., as you are repeatedly insinuating.
 * By the way, the EU Commision's letter was never given as a source in the article; it was part of my comment here (your opinion of that letter, which refers to the Commission's evaluation of judiciary reform as a part of the forthcoming EU Progress Report on the Republic of Macedonia, is irrelevant).
 * While your last comment would seem more like an attempt of yours to explain how they became notable ("the organisation has simply been jumping on the bandwagon making public announcements ... succeeding in having a few of them mentioned in press reports" etc.), Wikipedia is concerned with the fact of notability not its alleged explanation. Apcbg (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge then redirect to Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia. --Russavia Dialogue 13:11, 7 October 2009 (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.