Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commissioner Government


 * 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. Note this is not a keep closure as many of the votes were faulty it existed type votes that are usually discarded in AFD, and the policy based consensus either lean to move and discuss either a merge, a rename or something else, or delete. As those two sides are similarly split policy based, and AFD is not cleanup, it's a clear cut no consensus, and discuss this further on the talk page. Secret account 06:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Government

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per Talk:Commissioner_Government. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 100000 more sources than it is presented in article. I will mention just a few that have more information's then just info: The National liberation war and revolution in Yugoslavia (1941-1945), Zbornik za povijest školstva i prosvjete, Volumes 19-21, Prilozi za istoriju socijalizma, Volumes 11-12, Religion Under Siege: Protestant, Orthodox and Muslim communities in occupied Europe (1939-1950), Nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia (Nada Dragić)... etc, etc. This article should be expanded, and not deleted. Relevant subject about puppet government in occupied Serbia. Keep, for sure. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I note that WW has not even made a cursory attempt to explain how he got the incredible 100,000 sources. This is just a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense that he has used in place of policy-based argument on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm, obviously, its not "literally" 10.000 sources, but vast number of sources available on line. not to mention all of those that can be found off line. Anyway, that is irrelevant, sources are here, for sure, this article should be expanded, and then we may talk about it. But to delete only because you think that it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage? That is, i must use the same word again, obviously, wrong. Also, i think that nominator should not !vote, as his vote is already presented in nomination. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the AfD guideline, and have adopted the approach that my nomination shows my !vote. However, your comment "to delete ONLY because you think it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage" cannot be left alone. It is not "wrong", it is actually what the policy says. Please supply a diff showing the "vast number of sources available online", otherwise it is reasonable to assume you are relying on Proof by assertion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maker, you already have here 6 more sources, plus those in article. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And what coverage is there? Is it significant or is it just a passing mention? Give an example. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of passing mentions, (that should be in article also) but i will mention several main interesting things. Rehabilitovan Nedićev ministar Momčilo Janković Momčilo Janković, commissioner for justice obviously deserves the article, while informations from this case are very important for this govermnent also. There are a lot of information's about this article in Milan Nedić interrogation. (one small link, but i have some data also). Then some great information about colaboration in POTISNUTA ISTINA, Kolaboracija u Srbiji 1941-1944., with main data about so-called "Appeal to the Serbian people", which also can have article of its own. All of those should be mentioned here now. A lot of data to include. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The novosti article is about Janković and from what I understand from a very limited Google translate, it focuses on his role in the Nedić government, not his role or activities in the Commissioner Government. It certainly does not constitute significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government" which is the subject of this article. If you think Janković needs his own article, fill your boots, but that article is not an example of significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And all the rest of sources are. This is just a cherry on top. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another is a WP:CIRCULAR reference to the "Appeal to the Serbian People" article on sr WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Echoing No such user's comment in Articles for deletion/Puppet State of Serbia - there's apparently a wider issue here: should all of these various aspects of Serbia during World War II be combined into one article, and if so, what should its title be? Currently the aforementioned redirect points to the main German occupation article which has an unwieldy title, while Axis occupation of Serbia has continued to linger, and the redirect Serbia in World War II points there. That alone is ridiculous. Similar to Yugoslavia in World War II, I'd think that the most generic title is the best compromise. Having a gazillion "former country" articles that duplicate history articles is usually more trouble than it's worth. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have a lot of relevant info to say, then it deserves separate article. But when we have normal Serbia during World War II article, instead of this POV pushed monstrosity, we can maybe propose some other solution. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should back up your claims of a "POV-pushed monstrosity" with a modicum of cleanup tags or apologize for disrespecting what appears to be a fine contribution. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't expect an apology or recognition for the work from WW. It is evident from the lack of work they have put into the content that almost none of the editors that fought tooth and nail about the title of that article care a jot about the content. It's one of the reasons I am very wary about changing the title. It seems to me that it is be highly likely that a change to the title would be followed by a torrent of poorly sourced and revisionist changes to the article to make it about "eternal Serbia" rather than about a piece of Yugoslavia that the Germans administered using a military government. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect Joy, can we keep this on topic? The discussion you want to have I am happy to contribute to, but this AfD discussion is not the place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's on topic because the question is the same - are these subtopics of Serbia in WWII notable enough for standalone articles or not? Taken out of context, removing this article based on GNG seems like an awfully high standard for standalone notability. In context, it might not be. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept the basic premise. Can you expand? Do you mean in the context of the Territory or in the context of the GNS or what? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the current CG article, out of any context, it seems notable enough - six book sources for just a four-month period. Sure, none of them are really significant, but to say that it adds up is plausible. It would actually fare well in comparison with e.g. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. But, if we look at it in context of the fact it's just three paragraphs about something that's got to be described in the Territory... article anyway - then a removal (redirection) seems more appropriate. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your summation. So you are in favour of making this article title a redirect to the Territory... one or the GNS one? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the idea of merging the two puppet governments into one separate article if there was a way to name that article in a straightforward manner. I'm also fine with the idea of making them both section redirects into one article that is even more general, be it the Territory... article or an even more general article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. What about Serbian puppet governments during World War II to combine the two? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, possibly also s/during/in/. Also, the assumption is that you'd move the relevant details from the Territory... article there. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and arguments I had written on the talkpage-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - It exist a lot of sources about this topic. I think its a relevant topic about puppet government in occupied Serbia during the WW2. This article should be expanded.--Nado158 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources are you asserting provide significant coverage? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have an article on the Government of National Salvation, so having an article on the preceding government makes sense. Whether the current title is the best I do not know, but that's a different question. I agree with Joy that the nominator's interpretation of the GNG sets the bar too high. Srnec (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename Commissioner Government of Serbia or Commissioner Government (Serbia). The present title sounds like an article about the concept, rather than a particular administration (as the Americans would call it).  The subject is clearly notable.  Deficiencies with the quality of the refernecing are a matter for article improvement, not deletion.  My only concern would be if this was duplicatiing sonething else.  I note that there are a lot of redlinks, but some one who has served as a minister probably ought to have an article, even if the career was a short one due to the defeat of the Germans and expulsion of its Qisling government.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a little confused here. Is anyone disputing that such a government existed? If not, then as a national government it clearly deserves to have its own article, no matter how long it existed or how many sources cover it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Necrothesp, not sure how your statement gels with WP policy on notability. In any case, this was a puppet government of an occupied territory, and can in no way be described as a national government. Serbia was not a nation at that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no policies on notability. There are guidelines and opinions. A puppet government is still effectively a national government. We use common sense here, not unswerving dogma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The administration of the territories occupied by Germany at this period is a subject of serious academic interest. The question of the legitimacy of that administration, and even whether the area was internationally recognised as a state, is irrelevant when we are talking of a de facto government, even a puppet one. Much greater difficulties actually arise over the legitimacy of governments in exile. The article is certainly inadequate and the title needs improvement but there is often a problem of paucity of sources with historical subjects. We need to maintain a neutral POV and avoid arguments based on a dislike of the subject matter. --AJHingston (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, so who exactly are you saying made an argument based on a dislike of the subject matter here? Peacemaker67 seems to have spent a fair bit of time documenting the subject matter, so that can't possibly be a fair description of his stance; ZjarriRrethues said it's a content fork. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I am very interested in the subject matter, I just don't think this particular topic meets WP:GNG on its own. As Joy and I have discussed above, it and the Government of National Salvation (GNS) article (which is clearly notable and succeeded this administration) could very neatly be combined to create a Serbian puppet governments during World War II article. The sources are clear that neither of these "governments" actually did much governing, as the Germans maintained a "supervisory" military government which retained executive power over the entire territory. There is nothing POV about trying to place these issues in proper context. The fact that several editors commenting here have not known the nature of the "Commissioner Government" just shows that context is important. Either context alongside the GNS in a combined article, or context in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is not enough to sustain a separate article, that's an argument for a merger, not deletion. There is nothing preventing context from being given in the article to prevent misunderstanding. That is also not an argument for deletion. To my mind, an AFD suggests that the title up for deletion ought to be permanently redlinked or that the article is a hoax. Neither is the case here. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec on this. I thought I did detect a 'don't like it' line of argument on the talk page, but perhaps I misinterpreted. That the German attempt to establish this as a puppet administration failed, or that it never really had any power, are part of the topic. So is a comparison with other attempts to do so. Giving it space in WP does not confer retrospective legitimacy or importance. We have to be very careful in using GNG with historical topics because we are trying to apply current measures of notability retrospectively ('once notable, always notable'). The question might be whether we would think it notable if it happened now, at least in Serbia? That it may now be largely forgotten does not matter because an encyclopedia exists, at least in part, to tell us about things that we do not know. --AJHingston (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A merge is a legitimate and not an uncommon result of an AfD, though in retrospect it might have made more sense to simply go with WP:PM on this. At this point we better wrap it up - do we have consensus here that the proposed merge is not controversial? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Merge this article and Government of National Salvation into a Serbian puppet governments of World War II article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
 * You will have to propose that on talk page. This article will be obviously kept here in the current form. I disagree with merger, per keep voices above, and more reasons that will be explained on the relevant talk page, outside this RfD. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep-The article seems well referenced and of serious academic interest. Notability is ensured.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This user Knight of Infinity has just recently created an account and most of his edits now are keep !votes in various AfDs... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2013 (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.