Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orohydrography of Macedonia


 * 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Orohydrography of Macedonia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable book from 1911, no information establishing notability, no sources besides the book itself establishing its mere existence; contents of article are unrelated to the book's primary content and appear to be a mere WP:COATRACK to make some political-ideological point about the concept of "Macedonia". Article was re-created by original author after previous PROD deletion (history now restored). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 29 July 2010 UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't know what political-ideological point the article creator is trying to make about Macedonia, but I do think some such point is the purpose of this article. The article doesn't define "orohydrography" or even link to a Wikipedia article defining that (there doesn't seem to be one), nor does this article say anything about drainage, mountains, watersheds, or anything relevant to the subject of the book besides the ethnic groups who live in the region, which apparently was not the main subject of this book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete One of many books published in 1911. The topic of the book may be notable, but the book itself isn't.Mandsford 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the first academic geography book printed in Bulgaria that attempts to define the borders of Macedona, still a controversial subject. It is written by Vasil Kancov, the most renown bulgarian geographer and etnographer, known for his book Macedonia: Ethnographics and Statistics. I am uploading this book on the bulgarian wikisource, and I will expand this article as more material becomes available to me. --GStojanov (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make yourself familiar with the page somebody cited above, WP:NBOOK. Short summary: you will need to show that the book, and especially that particular aspect of its content you mention, has received a very substantial amount of independent coverage in other sources. For instance, you might have a case if you could show that general works on the history of Macedonia typically contain entire paragraphs or chapters discussing the historical impact of this book. I doubt they do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic of Macedonia, its borders, history, ethnic composition, is so controversial and accutely important that every bit of information is precious. I don't see why would we delete this article. There are tons of articles that can and will potentially refer to this book as a first hand testimony from a person deeply involved and knowledgeable about the topic of Macedonia. I will also upload the entire book in the wikisource. I will translate it myself, with some help from people that know bulgarian better than I do. In the process of doing that I will expand this article with additional info, for example the author gives us precious info as to how the borders of Macedonia shifted over time. It is an academic book on a subject of extreme importance and accutely interesting. Keep in mind that the word "Macedonia" was the top search word in wikipedia for quite a few days in the years past. --GStojanov (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this page, since there is literally no sourcing provided or findable about the book, and the article itself is not really about the book, or even about orohydrography whatever that is. Then someone (perhaps GStojanov) should create a different page, with a different title, about the borders or ethnography of Macedonia, citing this book as one of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bear with me. I'm translating the book in English on Wikisource Orohydrography of Macedonia, and after I have enough material, I will improve the article. You, of course, are welcome to help, if you can/want. The reason why I believe this book is notable is its author and thopic. Its author Vasil Kancov is the best informed person on the ethnic composition of Macedonia at the end of the 19th century, and is still the top authority on this issue. The topic of the book is also accutely important and highly controversial. So many wikipedia articles can potentially be affected by the contents of this book, so please bear with me while I translate the book, and do help, if you can/want. GStojanov (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've removed the bold "keep" from the above post of yours. Nothing to do with your argument, just a point of order because everybody is supposed to provide such a bolded "vote" only once. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I wasn't sure if I should re-state my opinion again or not. GStojanov (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you said the author and the topic is notable. But it doesn't mean this book is notable. See: WP:INHERITED. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More or less yes. And according to the notability criteria (No 5) if the author is important, all of his work may be considered notable. The book has been neglected and almost forgotten for a long tome (partly because it was published nine years after its author was assasinated), but it attracted a lot of interest lately with the re-emmergence of the Macedonian Issue. GStojanov (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2010 (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.