Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Arguments for deletion chiefly revolve around this article being original research; the keep !votes didn't, in my opinion, present enough of a case to justify keeping it. If you disagree, feel free to take it to deletion review. Veinor (talk to me) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Greater Slovenia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a biased article about a neologism pushed forward by a single user (as can be evidenced from the talk page). I've been living in Slovenia all my life and have never heard anyone mention the "Greater Slovenia". The term was apparently invented as an allusion to the Greater Serbia or Greater Croatia, but is a neologism and has nothing to do with the actual history of Slovenian national thought and practice. No reliable references discussing "Greater Slovenia" have been listed in the article (partisan books that were rejected at the talk page several times do not belong here and cannot be used as source material), even though they have been requested repeteadly since the first deletion debate in 2006. Do people really take seriously such conspiracy claims like "Slovenes have long and for that matter succesfully [sic!] hided this concept" or "this concept has been on ice because of Austrian and Italian support on joining EU and NATO"? I hope they don't. Wikipedia should be neither a dictionary of fringe terms nor a publisher of original syntheses. Eleassar my talk 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I completely agree with the arguments of user Elassar. The concept of "Greater Slovenia" doesn't exist. Of course, there are minor nationalist groups in Slovenia that argue for an expansionist policy, but as far as I know, they do not refer to Greater Slovenia. Contrary to the concepts of Greater Croatia, Greater Serbia, Greater Romania, Greater Albania, Greater Bulgaria and the Megali Idea, which all have a long and documented history, no such thing as "Greater Slovenia" has ever been conceptualized (or if it has, it remained in very small circles - small enough for nobody to notice). Greater Slovenia is a non-existing concept, as are for example Greater Italy, Greater France, Greater Ireland etc. In all these cases, other concepts exist, such as Italia irredenta or United Ireland. In the case of Slovenia, the concept that actually exists and has a 160-year long history, are United Slovenia (Zedinjena Slovenija). Relevant and referenced information from the Greater Slovenia article can be incorporated into the United Slovenia article, as I have already sugegsted in the talk page. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I found a [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php/slovenian-thread-246279p49.html forum of Slovenian nationalists] amused by our article. I didn't find any sources more reliable than conspiracy theories or unattributed assertions. Unfortunately I don't speak Slovenian and thus couldn't really read the article's sources, but absent any reliable English sources, I'll take the nationalists as an unbiased source for the nonexistence of the concept. Huon (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: you don't have to speak it, there's nothing special. Slovenes have another problem - they are becoming minority in their own country, after they've lost their ethnic territories to the west of present Slovenia in the past. As far as I know they even cannot write about it thanks to dominant western neighbours. In some way they have sacrificed their own history just to be peacefully switched to modern Central European streams. The bigger are pulling the strings. And if there's such concept as "Greater Slovenia" it's probably related to the nationalists of Zmago Jelinčič's party. But at this moment it's possibly much closer to the idea of restoring the general knowledge about their own history, than restoring of the territory, which is impossible. For example, genetically, around 40% of the modern Slovenes descended from the Slavs, the ancestors of the rest were older settlers, Celts, Venets,... And they are not allowed to even discuss about it equally, due to the pressure of the Central European scolarship. So this "Greater Slovenia" is nothing similar to other "Greater ..." concepts foud elsewhere. At least, not yet. Zenanarh (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: To Huon Doesn't it feel strange to you that most of the users who want this article deleted are Slovenes (as in the previous RfD). Why you choose to belive one or two nationalists from stormfront is strange also. -- Imbris (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Doesn't it feel strange that most of the users who are pushing for this article to be kept are from other ex-Yugoslav countries (including you, Imbris)? Doesn't it feel strange that several of these people have participated in controversial edits of Slovenia-related topics in the past? I'm not saying that people from other ex-Yugoslav countries shouldn't participate, but as long as you are doubting the motives of Wikipedia's Slovenian users, just because we are Slovenes, why not doubt the motives of Serbs and Croats who are expressing their their views here? After all, Slovenia isn't a very popular country among a large section of the general public in Serbia and Croatia. --WorldWide Update (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Rather than dealing with a real issue, its authors essentially invented a concept by taking bits and pieces from various sources, no matter how questionable, in order to support a preconceived notion. One of their sources, for instance, is a largely insignificant Canada-based author, whose theses are purely his own. In fact, the idea of a "Greater Slovenia" is on such shaky ground that the authors have even resorted to using the Slovenia-Croatia border dispute as evidence, an issue that has clearly nothing to do even with this invented concept, let alone the historic United Slovenia concept. Both Viator slovenicus and Elassar have expressed their arguments effectively and far more eloquently than I have, so I won't repeat all of their points. I do urge everyone to read their posts carefully, however, and then marvel at how this article has managed to last this long. WorldWide Update (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agree with both Eleassar and Viator slovenicus. --AndrejJ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete original research --Pustefix (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: User involved in deletionist crusades (predominantly) see Special:Contributions/Pustefix that joined few weeks ago. -- Imbris (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article has been started by an user form Slovenian wiki named Rokbas (if I remember correctly). It is sourced well enough to be kept. I see that some users have stated misleading thoughts such as connecting this article to some other greater nationalist topics. But this kind of connection is void. The topic of a greater Slovenian project deserves to be explained and not pushed under the carpet. Nobody is stating that this project exist right now, but it has existed and is documented.
 * This deliberate attempt to discredit the article just because some users do not like its existance and claim (in fancy wikipedian style) that it is a neologism. It is not because it is sourced and shall be continued to be sourced.
 * Exactly the same approach has been attempted once but it has failed because the deletionists do not care about improving the article, they think that wikipedia should contain only such documents and sources that have been part of the Slovenian high-school system. Much has been omitted from that curriculum and wikipedia should not be denied of sources and content simply because some users think this is not a broadly known topic in Slovenia. This is one more proof of the need for such article to stand. -- Imbris (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I nominated this article before. The issue here is not that some information should/should not be included in WP, the problem is that this article is a mess, taken from various unrelated sources and then put together, pretty much OR. --Tone 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Closing admin please take note that User:Imbris has canvassed both me (an entirely uninvolved user) and a few others (who may be more involved in Balkan political history articles). I'll leave it up to the admin in question to determine the appropriateness of such activity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - most of the users Imbris informed (including BigHaz) are those who participated in the first AfD. Huon (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. Thank heavens someone can remind me of what I did around here in the past... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is appropriate because somebody has ensured such support after the unsuccesfull orriginal RfD. -- Imbris (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Some WP:OR, lots of WP:CRUFT. SWik78 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Here're some materials. (in Croatian, Vjesnik newspaper),  (in Slovenian, citing of Večer newspaper),  (reaction of Croatian Prime Minister) . Until appearing of Zmago Jelinčič, Marjan Podobnik, SLS, etc., story about Greater Slovenia might have seemed funny. However, these two are opened expansionists. What makes things worse, that political party is extreme, but Slovenian governments haven't done anything about it. That ideology is poisoning the Croatian-Slovenian relations (that were very good). Kubura (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry but in all the articles you cited that's only a convenient phrase invented by the author himself as an allusion to the other Greater entities and does not refer to a pre-existing concept. --Eleassar my talk 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Article name need to be changed in Slovenian expansionism (or something similar) and then my vote will be Keep--Rjecina (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Talk:Greater_Slovenia enough sources for Slovenian irredentism. -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not found any other article named xx expansionism in Wikipedia. WP:1ST says "Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic." All the relevant information can be included in other articles. At least you're fair enough not to argue that the concept of Greater Slovenia exists. --Eleassar my talk 10:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Changing the article name to "Slovenian Expansionism" would only replace one neologism with another. WorldWide Update (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete original research.  Yahel  Guhan  02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this referenced and organized article with maps. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: While your argument that this article is well-referenced is debatable (I certianly dispute that characterization), the rest of your comment, i.e. the argument that this is an "organized article with maps", is an example of a discouraged retention argument: WP:PRETTY. --WorldWide Update (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly OR. --Sporti (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Imbris' OR, and not the first one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but no strong conviction. I live in Austria, and I'd be surprised if Jörg Haider would not immediately pounce on any shred of evidence of a movement like this; as I haven't heard ANYTHING about this nonetheless, I highly doubt the accuracy of the article, but I can't be absolutely sure, since I'm going by putative secondary sources here. — Nightstallion 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well this is not just a current even that Haider might be involved in. This is first and foremost a historical project which (partly) gone bad. There have been evidence produced on continuation of this project under the Great Slovenia name. I cannot think why should anybody want this article deleted when we have Greater Austria as a one man concept. -- Imbris (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article about Greater Austria refers to a real pre-World War I political concept. It is therefore comparable to the United Slovenia concept, which really existed (and was, contrary to your claim, eventually successful, as it ultimately united most Slovenian ethnic territory, which was its primary goal), rather than the "Greater Slovenia" concept, which is a neologism based on original and highly problematic "research". --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. SFR Yugoslavia's rumblings concerning Trieste is old news, and so is the Carinthian dispute after World War One, and the current maritime border dispute with Croatia. The "United Slovenia" concept also seems to have existed, but I do not find the article to lift the burden of proof in terms of documenting any actual irredentist movement in Slovenia. A fringe politician is shown on Slovenian tv holding a map displaying Slovenia enlarged with a few villages in Croatia, and one author has written something maximalistic, but that seems to be all. Valentinian T / C 01:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have come across many articles where users try to forward minor nationalist ideas as large scale political irredentist movements, such as Ilirida.  Balkan Fever  03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the earlier comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Most of the Slovene Wikipedia has been written by only one person (Klemen Kocjancic) as I have heard. This could be proven by statistics but I do not know how to reach those data. Nevertheless this article has been started by a Slovenian user who doesn't like hiding such concepts. Until recently we have not had an article about Province of Ljubljana also. I do not know what do Slovenes teach in their school curriculum and hope that admins would prolong this discussion and take in account the previous RfD. The concept existed in the past but is vague if it exists today. I have heard and remember this most clearly that Slovene minister for foreign affairs stated that somebody should pay (in territory) for the fact that Trieste is not in Slovenia. -- Imbris (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Imbris: I also remember Mr. Rupel's statement (I think it was from the period 2000-2004, during the Liberal Democratic government). He refered to the criteria according which the border between Socialist Federal Yugoslavia and Italy was drawn. The final criterium, agreed among the super powers and the two contended states, was to leave approximately the same number of Italians in Yugoslavia as they were "Yugoslavs" in Italy. This decision is not an invention by Mr. Rupel, but a quite well documented fact (you can find it in memoires of diplomats on all sites, as well as in analyses of many renowned historians, such as Jože Pirjevec, Carlo Schiffrer, Raoul Pupo, Milica Kacin Wohinz etc.). Now, what Mr. Rupel pointed out, is that the "Yugoslavs" left in Italy as a consequence of such a criterium, were in fact Slovenes, while all Croatian territorial claims were satisfied. Rupel did not use this as an argument for any territorial expansion of Slovenia, only as an moral argument, claiming that the Croatian side should be somehow grateful towards the Slovenes who "sacrificed" for Yugoslavia and enabled the fulfillment of all Croatian territorial claims towards Italy. Now, I don't want to enter in a discussion on whether such a statement is appropiate for a Foreign Minister. I just wanted to point out how many similar statments were in reality conveyed in a much more subtle way than they are pecieved (and later remembered) by the general public. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To: Viator slovenicus. Why (an if) Slovenes have expected that all of the Yugoslavians from the Zone A and B should be in Yugoslavia. The new and democratic Yugoslavia has not proclaimed any attempt to have ethnically exclusive state. Furthermore the Permanent Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste and the Census of the population show that there were Slovenes and Croats. Every nation of Yugoslavia sacrificed something for that state. Maybe only Montenegrins did not give up any territory. You are correct that such reasoning is not the way to discuss the matter, but Rupel started it. I belive that the general public had every right to express how they feel about Rupel because the general public is informed about what he said. Sadly the general public is not enough informed about Greater Slovenia this is why this article is here. So find sources and upgrade the article to a better plain. -- Imbris (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the Slovene Wikipedia has been written by only one person (Klemen Kocjancic) as I have heard.
 * You've heard? Where? By whom? Sorry, but comments like this makes me sure, that (all?) your other comments are irrelevant.
 * Province of Ljubljana? Nice contribution, there are many other missing articles (you are welcome) but i can't figure out relation with the school curriculum or/and RfD? --AndrejJ (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Slovene curriculum has everything to do with the matter. Also I have just heard such statements and your jumping in derogation of my complete editing shows you in not so nice light. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You've heard? Where? By whom? --AndrejJ (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are - a police inspector - I will not answer to your accusations. Why not simply rename the thing. -- Imbris (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not simply answer the thing? --AndrejJ (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Zmago Jelinčič is an open expansionist. The maps of Slovenian politician Marjan Podobnik (with Cro-Slo border at Novigrad on Istria) have caused the reaction of Croatian Prime Minister and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Prime Minister doesn't react to any incidents. Also, Slo. government hasn't accepted, but also hasn't said anything against that map (Nova TV, video included). Silence in such cases means approving. So, the ideology of Greater Slovenia is not some phantasizing, it's the reality. At last, the Slovenians newspapers Večer wrote that their politician Marjan Podobnik (Marjan Podobnik napenja mišice) has founded some institution named "Greater Slovenia". Kubura (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but no such institution exists. That's only a convenient phrase invented by the author to name the efforts of Marjan Podobnik. You'll have to find better sources to prove your claim. I see your talk page is full of calls to stop pushing forward your groundless nationalistic pov. --Eleassar my talk 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a satirical article! If you follow the links, you'll see that the article appeared in "Toti list", Vecer's satirical supplement. What next, citations from The Onion? WorldWide Update (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept is not an invention
Some of the deletionist squad have stated esentially invention. What does that mean -- Imbris (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a little confused. Imbris seems to suggest that "the concept existed in the past". The article explicitly mentions the "current" ethnic boundary and seems to suggest that Greater Slovenia is a current concept - why else does it discuss the border dispute with Croatia? The only history the article mentions is the Carinthian Plebiscite, where a significant part of the ethnic Slovenes seem to have preferred Austria to Yugoslavia - not an indication of Slovene nationalist interest in a Greater Slovenia. So what is the article supposed to be about? The pre-WW1 nationalist idea discussed in the (unfortunately not well-sourced) United Slovenia article? Post-1990 irredentist ideas involving the current state of Slovenia and its National Party? Both? For the first, we have another article, and I'll take Posta Slovenije as a reliable source for the movement's name. For the second, we have a few rumours, but no reliable sources that I can see, and I doubt that Slovene nationalists, those who are supposed to hold these ideas, wouldn't admit them. After all, Greater Slovenia isn't going to materialize if the Slovene nationalists laugh off the idea. Concerning "both", we don't have any sources at all linking the pre-WW1 concept to anything present except the use of the Kozler map by the Slovenian National Party (whose party statutes mention neither Greater nor United Slovenia, by the way). Huon (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why do you get confused. The concept existed from 1848 and you are able to see that United Slovenia was sometimes reffered to as Velika (Great) Slovenia. I do not see anything strange with connecting historical quest for Great Slovenia with numerous and not so little territorial demands of the current Slovenia. That nationalist site is one of many see Talk:Greater Slovenia for some current greater-nationalist discussions. What do you think, having Greater Slovenia (historical) and Greater Slovenia (contemporary) articles, both can be sourced. Carinthian Plebiscite is one of the lands that historical Greater Slovenia claims as is the land where Slovenes from Veneto decided to stay with Italy. Currently I do not have the time to include Vendi in the article - historical Slovenian politicians considered Vendi (Windisch) as Slovenes. This should be the basic point of the article and current territorial demands could be mentioned in brief. -- Imbris (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not only a historical fact
But also a project which cannot be realized towards Italy, Austria and Hungary. It can be realized towards Croatia. The question here is whether to delete the article or to keep it until we see whether will Slovenia try a referendum on the Croatian joining the EU. We have Greater Austria which has fewer sources than this article. The deletionist squad which is contained by a great majority of Slovenians have presented no proof that this concept never existed. When you see the previous RfD discussion you will see why nobody was notified that this deletion is an upcoming event. -- Imbris (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The deletionist squad which is contained by a great majority of Slovenians have presented no proof that this concept never existed." Sorry, but rofl. How can one prove that a concept never existed? It's like proving one's inocence. It is the task of those who claim it did exist to prove their statement, not the other way around. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not go to the library or archives in Ljubljana that is closer to the most of you deletionists. I will only say that the sources for the article has been listed in the article and you haven't disproved any of them. -- Imbris (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, for the large majority they have been disproven. For you they can never be. --Eleassar my talk 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not one of the sources have been disproven it is your imagination. The users who started this campaign have clearly organized themselves because of the previous unsuccessfull RfD. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia. I hope that this issue would be decided by an impartial admin who has not participated in the discussion and that she/he would not be from ex-yu. -- Imbris (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Imbris, if your goal was to present yourself as a fair observer, you chose the wrong strategy. You see, you have proven to many of us that your words and actions are guided by motives other than the desire to portray the subject matter in an impartial manner. Wikipedia's policy asks us to presume good faith. Unfortunately, I simply cannot do that, as the facts presented here tell a very different story. In fact, you have demonstrated very little good faith in this debate. First, you accuse us of supporting the deletion of this article because we are Slovenes. However, your next step is to canvass Kubura and other Croatian users who have never been involved in debates about this article, but are well-known for strong anti-Slovenian positions, and ask them to vote against deletion by saying that "Slovenians try to delete the article Greater Slovenia as if the concept never existed". You call us "deletionists", as if we are driven by some hidden agenda, invent theories about some plans that "can be realized towards Croatia", make outrageous claims and then, when asked to prove them, simply state that you've "heard" that they were true, pontificate about "not so little territorial demands of the current Slovenia" (and other original research), you spew blatant anti-Slovenian sentiment ("Slovenes have long and for that matter succesfully hided this concept"), wild conspiracy theories ("Even if this concept has been on ice because of Austrian and Italian support on joining EU and NATO it still lives"), and so on. In fact, those of us favoring deletion should be grateful to you, since your actions have clearly demonstrated just how much -- or how little -- credibility you deserve in this debate. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against Slovenes but have everything against those who want something deleted simply because they (in all of their wit) have not heard about it in school. I have not stated that I am a fair observer, I voted to keep the article. But my honesty is reall. I only report on sources and nothing more. All of the deletionists have done is shouting and taging the article, its editors and the theme with such names - and without any proof of wrong doing by the editors. I have presumed that some of the authors were gathered here in bad faith because they do not participate in the discussion and have created possible sockpuppets. I have not called Kubura (I do not know how he has found this discussion and I disagree with him on the issue of Tomislav II for example). So your accusation is null and void (as Pax would say). On the other hand deletionists have regrouped and tryed everything to gain support for this unsuccessful deletion (1st attempt). Slovenians in general are one of my favourite nations, I learn Slovenian (self-study with a small dictionary). The hidden agenda is obvious, you try to delete something without proving any compromitation of the sources on which the article has been built. That sockpuppet thing (I will not bother myself with) is an excellent example of how the deletionists have put their teeth where their money is. I have the right to comment on the current events as I see them, those are not part of the article but are useful for drawing a picture of the current state the Slovenian nation is. Croats and Serbs are not against Slovenes but on the other hand there are reliable evidence of some grundge the Slovenes have against Croats. There has been a survey to show that Slovenes have as the least loved nation (not Germans or Italians) but Croats. I do not know why this sentiment exists but Slovenes and Croats have never fought wars and I think that they never will. This is why this article should stay to remind of the historical attempts for United Slovenia (which were justified) have been misused to claim Istria and are continued to be misused by some individuals. This concept is real and when the Vendi issue will be included then the complete picture of such "greater" ideology would be complete. Recent teritorrial pretensions on Croatian land are just the last breaths of such ideology and should deserve a separate article which can show that Croatia during the SFRY has always given in to any demand from Ljubljana, there we could mention that Windische Mark was a part of Croatia, Žumberak issue (in the light of Military frontier) and other issues. -- Imbris (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Imbris, first of all, please take a look at the bottom of Kubura's talk page. Let me quote the last post: "Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Slovenia (2nd nomination). Slovenians try to delete the article Greater Slovenia as if the concept never existed. Please participate in the discussion. I have sourced to the best of my abilities. -- Imbris (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)" How can you now claim that you have "not called Kubura"? Secondly, those of us who favor deletion of this article have stated why we feel that it should be deleted. However, you have chosen to respond with unsubstantianted claims about "hidden agendas", both on the part of Slovenia (a hidden agenda of expansionism) and Slovenian Wikipedia users (a hidden agenda to delete certain articles just because we don't like them). You speak of "recent teritorrial pretensions on Croatian land". Well, there are some Slovenes who feel that Croatia has some pretensions on Slovenian land; that's why there is a Slovenian-Croatian border dispute in the first place -- which has, by the way, nothing to do with "Greater Slovenia" or "Greater Croatia". Of course, all of this is irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact that this article consists primarily of original research. Your statement "that Croatia during the SFRY has always given in to any demand from Ljubljana" is anothr example of original research of the most questionable type. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly enough your feelings are precisely that - hunches and nothing more. You and your coleagues have not disproven any fact stated in the article. General Meister journal might help with some additional proofs. But for you and your coleagues there would be no proof significant enough to let us continue to better this article and Wikipedia by searching for sources and proofs. And for the matter of fact Croatia has no territorial claim towards Slovenia (it is only the Slovenes who want territory). You are very easy in giving such remarks that something is OR. Look at any of the previous territorial claims of Slovenia towards Croatia (Croatia always gave in, again sadly enough nobody talks about it). Croatia gave in Marindol, Milić-Selo, Vukobrat-Selo, Paunović-Selo, and some villages in Istria too, also Štrigova was divided and Slovenia received its share, there are many examples where Croatia gave in during previous territorial demands form Slovenia. -- Imbris (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting dishonest. As WorldWide Update said above, Imbris did call Kubura. On the other hand, Eleassar did some canvassing of his own: 

Concerning the article, it's a mess. The first section, Overview, doesn't provide an overview, but discusses a WP:FRINGE theory attributed (where it is at all) to a book by a Slovene living in Canada. The book's title provides not a single non-Wikipedia Google hit; it is unknown to Amazon (despite being published in Toronto).

The second section is about a border dispute with Croatia, and about the National Party. In the dispute, Slovenia is prepared to give up some land in order to gain some water. Sorry, but a "Greater Slovenia" isn't created that way. The CIA world factbook speaks only of the territorial waters dispute, not of any land border dispute. Concerning the National Party, I found this source in English. So according to Jelincic Istria should belong to Slovenia. (Note that the first section's map doesn't include Istria in Greater Slovenia.) But Jelincic is not a government member, and I'm not prepared to take his word as either the position of a significant part of the Slovenes or official policy. Perhaps we should add that source to the Jelincic article, if something of that kind isn't already contained therein?

Next, the article discusses the Carinthian Plebiscite without any connection to either the first or second section, except maybe as another border dispute which involved Slovenes. Since even the ethnic Slovenes preferred Austria to the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, I again fail to see evidence of Slonene expansionism.

Finally, the "Privately owned Institute for guarding of national heritage '25th of June'". There's so little context that I can't even determine from the article what 25th of June's heritage this institute is supposed to guard. Judging from its website, it may (or may not) be affilated with the Slovenian People's Party, another 7%-of-the-vote party that never was part of the government. They do publish a rather interesting document (94 pages, 2 MB) that might well be our best source for irredentist Slovenian claims against Croatia.

So what does that give us? At the very best, we have some current minor Slovenian parties and/or private organizations who support claims against Croatia (though the 25th June seems to be primarily interested in water). We have the 1848 United Slovenia movement not even mentioned in the article which cannot really be termed expansionist since there was no Slovenia to expand (the 1920 Plebiscite might be termed expansionist, but I don't think we have a source actually doing it). We have a single fringe source in between. None of the above mention Greater Slovenia. There are no third-party sources discussing Slovenian expansionism (at least not among those I can read). There's a single Google hit for "Slovenian expansionism" (and that's sarcasm), none for "Slovene expansionism" In effect, we're doing a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Sorry for this long rant, Huon (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

These are not reasons for delete and the WP:SYN has not in itself the meaning of deletion but nudging of the contributors. Articles on Wikipedia (as any other) start with the first step, sometimes with a one sentence only. Then in a process of sourcing and content contribution by every interested editor it comes to their full body. This article is not a neologism because it uses the materials which is sourced, published and referenced. The concept of Greater Slovenia (which implies irredentism) is not meaningfull to merge with the romantic ideals of United Slovenia (even if United Slovenia claims Istria) Also this is an article in progress, which started with very few lines and sources, it will grow if the admins decide on the validity of it current state. See what should be incorporated, but I am not going to do this entire work, let Slovenes do it. There it is: Talk:Greater Slovenia. The deletionist squad is oblivious of those sources and keeps bickering instead of contributing content and sources. -- Imbris (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only link from Talk:Greater Slovenia that kinda matches the name is, but did u read what it is about? "The project Big Slovenia explores the visual appearance of Slovenian territory on the maps of Europe and the world. Based on initial findings, the Republic of Slovenia is very decorative." Based on this we could asume the books and articles u listed are there randomly just because of its name, not the content. --Sporti (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No it is not because that conceptual artists had in mind to show the Slovene public and for that matter the World audience what is hiding behind the territorial pretensions and claims on Croatia within drawing maps of Slovenia. I have watched an interesting broadcast from Slovenia to the EBU which shows an Italian-Belgian child who because of his fathers work have lived in Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and Slovenia. That child calls himself an European with a Belgian passport (his little brother considers him British) and they collect stickers for an album where Istria is portrayed to be in Slovenia. -- Imbris (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a look at all the web sources. Most of them are completely off-topic. We might conclude that Slovenian nationalists claim that the Slovene lands once were greater than current Slovenia - but I found no indication that they want those lands back. Instead one of the maps suggests the contrary - they're afraid of losing even more. For obvious reasons I didn't read the print sources given, but somehow I doubt that a work with the title "Greater Slovenia - the United States of Europe?" supports this article's claims.
 * We might have enough sources to write a good article about Slovenian nationalism - but this is neither the right place nor the right content. Huon (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation is that they are off-topic. We might not conclude that Slovene Greater Nationalists are frightened about loosing more of the Slovene land because they (that same Greater Nationalists) often ridicule "southerners" as they often derogatory call every nation in the former Yugoslavia which is geographically south of Slovenia. Those same greater nationalists have lived for 45 years in Democratic Yugoslavia, economically prospered and yet they have just now came to conclusions that they are loosing land of they Greater Slovenia. This project is as old as the Slovene Nation and your interpretations of sources is highly biased since you voted delete. Also it is highly dubious that the deletionist squad want this article deleted instead of tryed to rename the article.
 * The title you claim does not correspond to Greater Slovenia is very much about the concept, probably from a perspective of uniting all Slovenes in the European Union (without territorial pretensions). The current affair of Slovenian-Croatian border dispute is territorial pretensions and territorial claims on a sovereign state. It is not just a minute and minor problem, it should be looked more carefully into and within this and other articles.
 * We might have enough sources to write both Greater Slovenia (as a historical concept) and the article about Slovenian irredentism as well about Slovenian nationalism (even nationalshauvinism). Why hiding all of these concepts.
 * Imbris (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the above post is so ridiculous and off-topic that I won't even bother responding. I would, however, like to address one quote: "The current affair of Slovenian-Croatian border dispute is territorial pretensions and territorial claims on a sovereign state." This was clearly written from the Croatian perspective, implying that Slovenia has territorial claims on Croatia. From the Slovenian perspective, however, some see the issue as "Croatian territorial claims on a sovereign state", i.e. Slovenia. That's because some territory, such as the Gulf of Piran, is disputed. This isn't the place to argue who's right and who's wrong, but this has absolutely nothing to do with a Greater Slovenia or a Greater Croatia. --WorldWide Update (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute over the border at sea is a different thing. Institute 25 Junij works territorial pretensions and as I recall Kučan said that Sveta Gera (Trdinov vrh) is Croatian territory occupied by Slovenia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2008 (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.