Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitary National Liberation Front


 * 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   keep. AfD is the request to have an administrator (semi-)permanently delete the content of the page. There is consensus there is encyclopedic content here we would like to keep. There is no consensus in which form to keep this: Should it be merged? If so, what with? When there is consensus for this on the AfD discussion, it is reasonable and customary that the closing admin summorises that as well. In this case, there is no consensus for that, so the only thing to close here is the question of deletion. There is consensus against that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Unitary National Liberation Front

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No references or evidence of notability, article tagged since 2010, subject of edit wars. Performed Google search per WP:BEFORE and only found circular references back to Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 11:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per North8000 below. The articles are still in dire need of sources though. GiantSnowman 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not written as extensively as it should be, but its subject is certainly very notable. "National Liberation Front" Yugoslavia renders 22,000 hits on Google Books. And as for "edit wars" - one very brief edit-war hardly justifies any deletion of content. Anyone familiar with this subject is aware of its notability. Have look, for example, at the Liberation Front of the Slovene People article, which someone took the time to write properly, and which is only one of six segments of this organization. -- Director  ( talk )  11:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add some of the sources to the article? GiantSnowman 11:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the article title "Unitary National Liberation Front," then? Nobody Ent 12:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is 2 1/2 years old and still has zero references/sources. Yet the topic seems to have RW notability. With all of these different names etc.,  could there be multiple articles on the same topic? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it the same as the (barely referenced) Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia? GiantSnowman 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article basically says that the same organization (albiet reorganized) has had 3 different names, those being 2 of them, and the third is already a redirect to Socialist Alliance..... Maybe a merge/redirect is in order? North8000 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So do we merge Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia into this article or vice versa? Is it really the same organization at all (since it did not perform the same function)? If we must merge, I'd merge the SAWPY article here rather than the other way around, but I think the articles should remain separate. -- Director  ( talk )  15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia.   The article basically says that Unitary National Liberation Front was the earliest of three names for what would eventually be for Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia  And the time period and membership was much larger for the latter.  North8000 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 North8000 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've touched upon a sticky question. The National Liberation Front/National Front was a significant organization. It was present in the parliament (the AVNOJ) and in essence was the ruling political coalition of Yugoslavia for about 4 years. The "Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia" was nominally proclaimed by the regime to be the continuation of the wartime and post-war coalition, but its function was significantly changed and marginalized. It was really a relatively unimportant organization . The Communist Party of Yugoslavia was firmly in charge on its own by then.
 * Keep I've been convinced. Especially by Direktor's points.  Merger later is a possibility but deciding or dictating such now in this venue on such would not be a good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, it was called United People's Liberation Front. --Eleassar my talk 15:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, its not "ujedinjeni" or "sjedinjeni", but "jedinstveni". "United" is just the wrong translation, "unitary" is the only appropriate translation of "jedinstveni" in its given context. -- Director  ( talk )  15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per whom? Sources translate jedinstveni as united. --Eleassar my talk 15:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Either way can we close the Afd please? And discuss possibilities for name changes and merges on the talkpage? -- Director  ( talk )  15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this, nor am I very knowledgeable on this. I was just doing my best to recommend something based on what is in the articles. I would defer to others who are more knowlegable on this. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No no, your position is very logical. I was thinking about that possibility myself, I'm not sure, but I don't think it'd be a good idea. -- Director  ( talk )  00:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No justification for an article named "Unitary National Liberation Front" have been presented. Finding references for similar but different names is like saying finding references for "Fish" justifies having an article on Catfish. If it's notable as "Unitary National Liberation Front" find some references to support that; if it's notable under a different name move or merge the article to that name. Nobody Ent 02:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh.. its not about the name - its about the notability of the subject. Even if the article isn't named appropriately (and imo it is), do you think we should delete all articles that aren't quite named in accordance with policy?


 * This organization was named "Jedinstveni narodnooslobodilački front", but that's kind of tricky to translate. Hence different sources use different names.
 * The adjective "jedinstveni" is accurately translated as "unitary", but its very often mistranslated as "united" (which would be "ujedinjeni" or "sjedinjeni", as in "Sjedinjene Američke Države", "United States of America").
 * The adjective "Narodno" (from " narodno oslobodilački") can in this context just as accurately be translated as either "national" or "people's", since there is no difference between "nation" and "(the) people" in Serbo-Croatian (both are simply referred to as "narod").
 * In addition, the organization's short name was simply "Narodnooslobodilački front" ("National Liberation Front" or "People's Liberation front").
 * So there are quite a few variants in English sources. -- Director  ( talk )  04:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaving other things aside, the translation "united front - jedinstveni front" is given in a dictionary. (Ostojić, Branko. "Englesko-srpskohrvatski I srpskohrvatsko-engleski rječnik", 1991. Pg. 67) I don't think there are any sources for a different translation, but if there are, please present them. I wouldn't get into the matter here if you would not so vehemently claim the only correct translation is unitary. --Eleassar my talk 09:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this? Add one or more Serbo-Croatian sources documentating notability for Jedinstveni narodnooslobodilački front. Nobody Ent 13:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia but without the following information: " that united all political parties and individuals of the republican, federalist, and left-wing political spectrum". It can be inserted only if a editor is able to cite reliable, published source which directly supports that material. BoDu (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello BoDu. It shouldn't be merged with an organization that was only nominally a successor and had a completely different structure and function. The SAWPY wasn't a political coalition (all parties were banned), it had no power whatsoever, and should be merged here if anything. And as for your nonsense objections, lets review. Obviously it did consist of left-wing or center-left elements of the political spectrum, since it was led (and dominated) by the damn communist party. As for "federalist" - the coalition instituted the federal system in Yugoslavia (November 29 1943, the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia), banned the King from returning to Yugoslavia and, in fact, actually deposed the monarchy after winning the election on November 29 1945 (as its first act, establishing the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia). In light of all these facts (that are taught in elementary school), present sources on the talkpage that suggest they were not left-wing, federalist, or republican - or else stop edit-warring and bothering people about this. -- Director  ( talk )  16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on whether we merge the SAWPY into this article or vice versa. The unsourced information is another story. You claim that the UNLF united ALL political parties and individuals of the republican, federalist, and left-wing political spectrum. Can you provide a reliable source for that claim? Yes or no? BoDu (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR has mysteriously disappeared. You don't do sources DIREKTOR, that's apparently not your thing. BoDu (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. We should discuss the merges and moves on the talkpage in the proper venue. Not like this. -- Director  ( talk )  16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has had a no ref tag for a year and half. As an editor limited in skill to American English, I an unable to find any references to support the name as is; it's not unreasonable to expect editors who wish to keep the article to meet the burden of providing sources to justify its existence. There's no requirement they be either in English or online -- add a one or more references justifying the notability of either "Unitary National Liberation Front" or "Jedinstveni narodnooslobodilački front" and I'll switch my position to keep. Nobody Ent 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lacking some actual content, this could easily be merged into either the aforementioned article or into Yugoslavia in World War II. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is a topic specific to the Partisans, not the war as a whole. -- Director  ( talk )  17:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another comment. As far as I understand this is an AfD, not a merge proposal, and I would like to see a proper discussion on that subject over on the talkpage. As far as expansion is concerned, I would have done it but I'm stretched thin right now (I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak but that's not working out :P). Give me a couple days and I will expand the article as well as source it. For now I will say again, as a person very familiar with the subject matter, that this is a separate, significant political organization, that ruled a country of 25,000,000 for five years, led the resistance therein, as well as legislated the institution of a second Yugoslav state. Neither a merge or deletion are appropriate. -- Director  ( talk )  21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of this article is clearly notable per the many reliable sources found by book searches such as and . Any discussion about renaming or merging should take place at the article talk page, not at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2012 (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.