Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian Genocide


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @136  · 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Genocide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Content fork. The article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English (380 Google-hits, mostly from forums and blogs), and consists of two halves. The first half is also discussed in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria (some of the content may be moved there), while the second half is a copy-paste of Batak massacre. The version on the Bulgarian Wikipedia no longer doesn't exist, while the Japanese version has been created by someone with the same IP address as the creator of the English version (220.43.242.23) is a translation of the Bulgarian one. Preslav (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom.  Balkan Fever  08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Preslav. The name is inappropriate, the grouping of the April Uprising massacres and the 1913 events in Thrace is not based on any logic, and the general tone is extremely biased. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete This is nonsence. Jingby (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources


 * Hello. I don't know how you got those 380 hits. I just used Google and 'bulgarian.genocide' got 111,000 hits. The search for a greek.genocide got 352,000 hits. For comparison 'armenian.genocide' got 1,170,000 hits, which is overwhelmingly bigger result than both greek and bulgarian genocides. I just wonder does just the Google ranking matter? You say that the 'article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English'. I am sorry but I really beg to differ with that statement. Both Irish political activist and journalist James David Bourchier and American journalist Januarius MacGahan write in english and describe the  as a genocide. They both write in great detail and if somebody, like yourself isn't acquainted with their oeuvre doesn't mean that the subject 'is not known as such in english'. The Battak Massacre, the April uprising and other events are not unrelated to each other. They are part of the Bulgarian Genocide, recognized by many renowned historians, intellectuals and recently politicians. There is original research on the subject by such world renown dignitaries as the director of the Bulgarian National Museum professor Bojidar Dimitrov, the world's leading Thrace scholar the late professor Alexander Fol, professor Georgi Bakalov and others. I just wonder wether you could state a real reason, or a real breach of wikipedia policies, implying that the world doesn't need such an article. For instance the Greek Genocide describes events in the period 1914-1923.It encompasses the whole of the First World War. But you don't say that these are unrelated events. Well, why not merge the Batak massacre, the April uprising and other events into the Bulgarian Genocide article. I just can't help but see an unwillingness to recognize a 'Bulgarian Genocide' whatever the reasoning supporting it. Kansai mikan (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I Googled "Bulgarian Genocide" (between quotes) to demonstrated that the term does not occur very frequently in English, that it is therefore not a suitable title for the subject of the article, and that not even a redirect to a more suitably titled article is needed. The journalists you mention describe the events as massacres; the term genocide wasn't invented until decades after they died. I do not deny that atrocities took place, but I think they are best described at the individual articles describing them (Batak massacre being one of them), or, if the event is less notable, in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria. I hope you will join us in doing so. If all events together can be described as genocide according to the definition is another matter, but this is not what we are discussing here. Preslav (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What user Peccafly is referring to are at best insinuations, although it might be described as outright lying. Never did I make ‘biased description against’ anybody. Peccafly is a self-declared supporter of the independence of Kosovo’s albanians, so he might not have liked the reference to Kosovo Liberation Army’s roots as a terrorist organization. However these are not ‘bias’ but facts as witnessed by many sources, including American and German ones that I referenced. In fact the Japanese article on Kosovo was extremely biased and pro-albanian, stating that albanians populated the area since the Neolithic Age, and full with anti-serbian propaganda and other nonsense. It badly needed a clean-up, and I effectively brought it to life, by writing very balanced and informative content. I guess nobody here could understand what he means by ‘the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown’. I'll decypher it for you. Peccafly is a supporter of ‘Free Tibet’, ‘Free Taiwan’, ‘Free Kosovo’, but NOT of a FREE South Ossetia. It is easy to guess why. He echoes the American propaganda of the day and the propaganda of the present Japanese government. So as the ‘Bulgarian Genocide’ is not a news story and the Japanese mass media didn’t input in his head what to think on the matter, he perhaps wanders what the ‘politically correct’ stance would be. I guess he went with the ‘delete’ lot, as they are majority here. Indeed, Peccafly, the most difficult thing is to use your head and think for yourself, when there is not NHK to tell you what to think.Kansai mikan (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not systematic, based on few unrelated events, to sum it up - does not fall into the genocide category; basically no English language usage as demonstrated by Preslav; material is just copy-pasted from other articles. -- L a v e o l  T 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – POV-pushing nightmare, and unsalvagable because the very definition of the topic contains a highly tendentious OR assumption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure OR. Jd2718 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the good reasons already listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original Research. In Japanese Wikipedia, a user with user name (ja:User:Kansai mikan) had posted very biased discription against the Independence of Kosovo, although the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown.--Peccafly -talk-hist 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Nonsentic.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The events that overtook the Bulgarians during the five centuries of slavery are usually called "massacres." However more and more historians describe the events as possessing genocidal intent. The "stable" element of the genocide was Bulgarian nationality and language. Christianity represented both a stable and unstable element, as some Bulgarians /the Pomaks/ were allowed to live if they accepted Islam.
 * 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.