Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Macedonian Diaspora (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. This discussion was made much more difficult than it needed to be by a large contingent of clearly externally canvassed participants. Those organising such campaigns need to understand that they almost never have the desired effect. In fact, they are likely to have precisely the opposite effect. Wikipedia editors will become suspicious and start examining the article in much greater detail than they otherwise would. As it says in the hatnote to this discussion, this is not a vote; mere expressions of support for the article are ignored. What is needed is evidence of notability and this was either completely lacking from most on the keep side, or else they showed an utter misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's definition of notability is.

Only Macedonia1913 made a fair attempt at presenting sources, but these were largely rejected by other editors. Rathfelder gave some support, but their rationale was largely an OTHERSTUFF argument which, as closer, I'm obliged to ignore. That may (or may not) be a good argument for changing guidelines, but it has no bearing on this AfD. The one source that was generally accepted as counting towards notability was the European Diaspora in Australia book. However, it was agreed that this by itself was insufficient to meet Notability (organizations and companies). I also note that the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing who have an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best.

There was some discussion of the dissertation being used as a source. Some editors seem to have confused this with a Doctoral thesis. It is not, it is for a Master's degree, as clearly stated on its title page. Doctoral theses are peer reviewed and considered part of the accepted body of scholarly knowledge. Master's theses are not. Nobody argued that this work "had significant scholarly influence" as required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and pointed out by several particicpants. Its hard to see how they could have done since gscholar shows that it has no citations in other works.

Some editors requested that the page be salted. I'm declining to do that, this one is borderline enough that it may be possible to show notability in the future. However, I strongly recommend that any new draft is done by an experienced Wikipedia editor. A third AfD like this one will almost certainly end with the page being pernamently protected from recreation. SpinningSpark 01:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

United Macedonian Diaspora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable organization with very little coverage. The page for this organization has already been deleted one before.

Additionally, it is important to note that members of this organisation have critized before the deletion of this page blaming it on 'Bulgarian & Greek paid wikipedia editors' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4) as well as recently creating some kind of 'Wikipedia taskforce'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXGhAhd7qc) James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I re-created the article because I believe there is sufficient coverage of it to exist. There are reliable independent sources like these  which cover the subject with good depth. There are several other sources, such as the US Census Bureau, that describe the organization more briefly. Comparing to other diaspora articles that exist, this one has at least as good coverage in RS (yes, I know wp:OTHER but nonetheless worth stating). The second part of the nominator's rationale is irrelevant and does not apply to my editing of this article. -- Local hero talk 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on the two above sources: The first source is a reliable source, but two pages of coverage in a large book are not enough to substantiate an entire Wikipedia article in my opinion. The second article is not a reliable source, it's a thesis, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." In any case, reliable or not, the second source only gives trivial coverage anyway. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The opinions of individual members of the organization does not represent the opinions of the organization as a whole. The organization has been influential in the Macedonian diaspora, being the main arm of the Macedonian diaspora in the United States, whilst having a significant presence in Canada and Australia as well. -- Dikaiosyni  —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Strong delete. All the coverage is incredibly trivial and short. I'm not even sure every source being cited in that article is reliable. Note an enormous number of sources were deleted by me for them being not independent or not reliable see the page history, so you don't bring up any of those sources if you find them on google. This article is a clear WP:GNG fail. There is no "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail". And moreover, note that "multiple sources are generally expected". The closest that there is to "in-depth coverage" is 2 pages in a 265 page book. Even if we say that counts as in-depth coverage and detailed coverage, which I dispute, the article still totally fails having multiple sources which give it in-depth and detailed coverage. Also note WP:MULTSOURCES "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." And also note that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." Multiple trivial mentions are not sufficient. There needs to be multiple significant sources per the WP:ORG policy. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first source User:Local hero presented is good. The second is a PhD thesis, so not really reliable. pburka (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Response I was referring to User:Local hero's comment on what an individual member of UMD said regarding Wikipedia as representing the organization as a whole, using it to justify why the UMD article should be deleted. The comments made by an individual UMD member should not be taken into account. -- Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are right, the fact that the organization is recruiting volunteers in WhatsApp & private invite-only Facebook group for "Rapid Response" on Wikipedia is not a criterion for article deletion. Yet, so far we haven't seen any significant independent source. The "2020 Census" one is close but can be qualified as a "dependent source" as part of the "Partner Spotlight". --StanProg (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2020 census is still very trivial coverage. This basically counts as a "listing" per the examples of trivial coverage on ORGDEPTH. It isn't anywhere close to the examples of substantial coverage on ORGDEPTH. The policy is very clear that a source needs to make it possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." The 2020 census is literally a stub. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

oppose: UMD is probably the best known and one of the most influential macedonian diaspora organizations. It definitely deserves a wiki article. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I was attacked personally by this organisation and still suppose its set of socks is voting around. In late April 2020 an online webinar was promoted by its President Meto Koloski: On April 29th, we will host “Wikipedia Warriors: The New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia.” Instructions were provided on the how to change the information here. Jingiby (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While supporting deletion, you've actually added sources to the article which establish notability. These sources portray the organization in a negative light but nonetheless you must therefore find the subject notable since you've found sources? -- Local hero talk 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, he hasn't. That source only gives the UMD an incredibly brief mention, it speaks about the UMD for one sentence. That doesn't make the subject notable. It doesn't give it in-depth coverage. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose : There are quite a bit of online sources both on Google and on Google News about this organization. It is a legitimate organization from what I can gather. News outlets Newsweek, SBS, National Post, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Total Croatia News would not be reporting the organization's statements and views if the organization was not an authority. While Google is a great search engine, it is not the only resource. I encourage editors to use all sources available, including academic, media, governmental, non-governmental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources. No one has been able to point to any. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: In your opinion what is significant coverage, and what are reliable sources? The article cites several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: There's needs to be significant coverage FROM reliable sources. Having reliable sources is insufficient if they do not give significant coverage. An example of significant coverage would be if a book were to be written about the UMD. Note that this is very different to a book merely mentioning the UMD in one or two sentences. Now look, before today you had only ever made 7 edits to Wikipedia. So I would strongly encourage you to gain more experience before being so certain of your opinions. This space shouldn't be used to give general lessons on how to edit Wikipedia. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems very suspicious to me that UMD's and only UMD's article is for deletion when for example National Italian American Foundation Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Italian_American_Foundation with no sources whatsoever isn't threatened with deletion. Wikipedia indeed has a Macedonian problem and it needs to be aknowledged by neutral editors too. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you are welcome to nominate that article for deletion if you feel it fits the relevant policies. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:G4. This page was deleted merely 2.5 months before being created again. Clearly more water needs to flow under the bridges before we can consider reversing the decision. Unless we consider the first decision wrong, in which case the right move is to raise it at WP:DRV, not to create it again. The second part of the nomination rationale is pertinent to this discussion per WP:CANVAS. Place Clichy (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had missed the original deletion discussion. This was my first time creating a previously deleted article, so I reached out to the deleting admin first regarding appropriate action. He stated I could either raise it at WP:DRV or simply rewrite it. I chose the latter expecting other editors to see good enough support in reliable sources. I'd rather we argue for/against deletion based on whether this article is notable enough to exist, but if needed I can give it more time and raise it at WP:DRV. In hindsight now, I wish I had gone that route. -- Local hero talk 16:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I acknowledge that you were not aware of the previous discussion and had not participated in it. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Very important comment: Closing admin has to note that much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda (yes, that seriously happened lol). The decision to keep/delete this page can't be decided by a popularity contest, it has to be decided on policy. It's certainly a very unusual statistical coincidence that a bunch of very new Wikipedia editors all managed to stumble upon this AFD within mere hours of it being nominated for deletion...I've never seen anything like this on an AFD before. WOW! I didn't know that nominating this article for deletion would be such a great recruiting drive for Wikipedia. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Slanders against editors User Apples&Manzanas claims that "much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda". There is no proof whatsoever that the support this page gets is in any way connected to some unkown campaign made by the organization. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: I never said there was. You missed a few sentences in the middle there. But certainly, based on my experience as an editor, I think it's an unusual coincidence that (A) A member of this organization has led a campaign to recruit people to fight for a POV on Wikipedia. (B) This exact organization's wikipedia page gets nominated for deletion. (C) A bunch of Wikipedia editors, with extremely few edits, and edit histories which all largely relate to Macedonian nationalism come to defend this organization within hours of it being nominated for deletion. This is of course, an unusual coincidence. I'm not casting specific doubts on any individual, only talking about statistical likelihoods in the aggregate. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There seem to be sufficient independent sources to keep the article. Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Did you read any of those sources or the comments in this AFD? There needs to be significant coverage given in multiple reliable sources per the WP:ORG policy. No one has been able to point to two examples of significant coverage. A brief mention in reliable sources is never enough. It doesn't matter if one million reliable sources give it a brief mention, that's still a GNG and ORG fail, if it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "significant coverage" is not objectively defined. It has to be considered in context.  If independent sources cover the views of an organisation like this that is enough.  Very few organisations generate detailed lengthy examination. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: There hasn't been a single reliable secondary source which has written about this organization as its subject. No book has written been written about this organization, no journal article article has been written about this organization, no newspaper article has been written about this organization. A one sentence mention in a journal article does not count as "in-depth" and "significant" and "direct" and "detailed"...as per the aforementioned policies. Moreover, this is an organization which has a member requesting other members to push a POV on wikipedia and another member is even talking about how this exact article got deleted and "now [they] have to start from scratch". You should be much more skeptical towards this material per WP:CANVASSING and WP:COI. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * does have a good point, per WP:GNG the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". We need reliable sources such "that no original research is needed to extract the content." That's been achieved here. This subject seems to be facing relatively high scrutiny, we definitely don't require all 6 mil+ of Wikipedia's articles to have previously had a full book written about their topics. -- Local hero talk 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, this is wrong. The relevant policy clearly states that "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." Per WP:ORGDEPTH. I know you wrote this article but it's just time to admit that it doesn't meet the notability requirements. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that time yet. Out of two uninvolved users to voice their opinions here, one is in favour of keeping and the other is suggesting a procedural delete. Let's wait on it. I know this has become your crusade, but it's just time to admit that boldfacing every other sentence defeats the purpose of boldfacing... -- Local hero talk 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:G4. It was deleted after a discussion on 24 March 2020. It's interesting that UMD created a "Macedonian rapid response taskforce" to fight against "delegitimizing of the Macedonian people on the internet, Wikipedia,...". I would not be surprised if we meet some of the volunteers in this discussion. --StanProg (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you delete an article about an organisation like this it's not surprising that the community fights back. But their fightback is irrelevant to the question of notability.  There are sufficient independent citations.  More than for many similar articles. Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply - you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if there are "sufficient independent citations". This is entirely irrelevant. There could be a million independent citations, it still fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG which make it abundantly clear that it needs to have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." per WP:ORGCRITE. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are additional quotes from the relevant policies which show why this article does not have significant coverage:
 * 1) "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." WP:ORGCRITE.
 * 2) "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." WP:ORGDEPTH.
 * 3) "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." WP:ORGDEPTH. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The User:Apples& brought this Article For Deletion discussion to my attention on my talk page. Regarding my position, I haven't decided. There have been some notorious cases linked to the UMD and its head, Metodija Koloski. Specifically, Koloski's racist comments against Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks, as well as lobbying efforts in various countries (often jointly with Turkey's diaspora organization TCA), and (unverified?) accussations of bribery and corruption by the Turkish government, I am not sure I would support keeping or deleting UMD's article. However, it is an indisputable fact that they gained some limited attention by certain WP:RS. Wikipedia already has articles about diaspora organizations of other ethnicities, so why not this as well? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it entirely fails the relevant policies such as WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE which in their full make it abundantly clear that for any source to count towards notability, it needs to be providing in-depth coverage. All those sources contain about one-sentence worth of coverage. Per WP:SIRS an "Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability....each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must be multiple such sources that qualify." No one questions that this organization has been covered by reliable sources, but only reliable sources which provide significant coverage count towards notability. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No uninvolved users to opine here share that view yet. But anyway, I'm just here to point out the mis-characterization that "all" of the sources contain "about one sentence" of coverage. The US Census Bureau source and The European Diaspora in Australia for starters. Pretty sure the rest are more than a sentence too. -- Local hero talk 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "no uninvolved users...share that view". Myself, Jingiby, StanProg, James Richards, Placy Clichy have all voted to delete. Are you defining anyone who disagrees with you as 'involved' and anyone who agrees with you as 'uninvolved'? I did much to improve your article, deleting countless terrible sources. I'm the only reason the article looks superficially good at the moment. It doesn't matter how many people support your edits, the policy is very clear that the article should be deleted. Your reasoning for why the article should be kept has changed about 4 times, after each time you were proven to be wrong. And none of those 'uninvolved editors' have actually made a policy argument for why the article should be kept: none have pointed to significant and in-depth coverage in at least two sources. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Meaning ones that aren't involved in editing the article and don't have predictable opinions on these issues (i.e. Macedonian and Bulgarian editors). So that leaves Place Clichy who voted to deleted technically, but not based on notability. Then there's SilentResident and Rathfelder, neither of which support the view of a lack of notability. That's what we've got so far. Your policy arguments are based on your interpretations of them and you've made it clear in every single reply to every comment. Let's await more neutral opinions. My reasoning hasn't changed at all actually, I think the organization is notable enough to have an article. If any uninvolved editors come along disagreeing with that, then so be it, we'll delete the thing. -- Local hero talk
 * I'm not Bulgarian or Macedonian just by the way...Also, you forgot that it was James Richards - an uninvolved editor - who nominated the article for deletion per a lack of notability in the first place...Also, SilentResident never said the article DID have significant coverage, perhaps you should wait for her to reply before trying to assign her to one side or the other. Rathfelder never made any argument about any source giving significant coverage either, Rathfelder made irrelevant arguments about the quantity of sources and then said there was no way of defining significant coverage. If significant coverage didn't matter the relevant policies wouldn't mention the need for it over and over again. I also remind you of WP:CLUE, yes I know it's an essay, and WP:NOTDEM. But the only so-called "uninvolved editor", besides myself, who has actually discussed significant coverage has expressed that it should be deleted. No one has ever disputed that there are multiple reliable sources that mention this organization, but this is insufficient to prove notability. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right if I'm taking your word for it, but you edited this article heavily and seem to consistently take position opposed to the Macedonian side on other articles. Whatever, call yourself uninvolved if you like, we still hardly have a consensus to delete here. James Richards is clearly a Bulgarian editor... and he doesn't even seem to know how to form an interwiki link. And I never said SilentResident stated the article was notable enough lol, I just stated that the user has not agreed with your stance which you claim is so "clear". Rathfelder left his opinions and went on with his day rather do this back and forth like I am, clearly a much smarter person than I. -- Local hero talk 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree to stop talking for the moment, for the benefit of the closing admin. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say there was no way of defining significant coverage. I said there is no objective measure. It depends on context.  If you can produce an objective measure lets have it.  But it appears to me that those who want to delete are applying inappropriate standards which would not be met by any articles about similar organizations.   Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've produced objective measures countless times in this article...Here is one of many such examples. For a SINGLE source to be considered significant for the purpose of notability it needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH. There also needs to be multiple sources which do this and each source must provide this level of significant coverage in its own right, the sources do not add up together per WP:SIRS. How can sources which provide one or two sentences worth of coverage make it possible to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Remember once again, that for the purposes of establishing notability EACH source needs to make it possible to write more than a stub article. As for your comments about other organizations allegedly not meeting such standards, that's a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So are you going to propose the deletion of 90% of the articles about hospitals and universities? Rathfelder (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no idea of the exact percentage...But yes I would support deletion of hospital and university articles if they fail to meet the requirements of the WP:ORG policy. And for whatever it's worth, I think this organization fails hard to meet the GNG too. But the ORG policy sets an even higher bar for notability than the GNG, so this organization fails even harder. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Very important comment, from the opposing side To the closing admin, the reason the article has been brought up for deletion is not why they claim they have. These editors always find technicalities on Wikipedia to manipulate and push their Point of View on Macedonian issues. Firstly, they deleted the UMD article on the basis that it was self-promotion, now they claim that UMD is not a credible organization with a lot of coverage. UMD is a credible Macedonian organization, which engages in diplomacy and advocacy for Macedonian issues. The editors don't like the nature of the organization, since their agenda on Wikipedia is to discredit anything Macedonian. In all articles regarding Macedonia, you will see the same editors editing constantly and pushing their point of view due to technicalities, despite the number of scholars who disagree with the agenda that they are pushing on Wikipedia. For more information, someone has brought this up on other sites:  Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Response: I will remind you that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is": see WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. It doesn't matter if you like this organization or think they do good work. It's irrelevant. It is also inappropriate for you to be linking to 2 reddit articles which attack by name. I've pinged him because it's only fair that he sees this. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is interesting to see that “Wikipedia Warriors who open the New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia” are accusing me of discrediting all articles regarding that area. Jingiby (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please rather than slandering other fellow Wikipedians, and falsely accusing me of being Bulgarian just for nominating this article for deletion. It is better to provide give valid reasons and evidence why this organisation is notable. Also it is important to point out that it is interesting that the page for United Macedonian Diaspora was re-created after already being deleted within a few days of the same organisation creating their very own 'Wikipedia taskforce'.

https://ibb.co/VgYTJ0v https://ibb.co/3h4w0bz

The bios of some of new users involved in this discussion also offers an interesting insight about their aims on Wikipedia especially when you take into account that United Macedonian Diaspora has been calling for meatpuppets outside of Wikipedia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 &

https://ibb.co/XLqZLKL https://ibb.co/yWGxYjG

--James Richards (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt: Most of the refs here only talk about the general category of diaspora, not the organization itself. The only refs that even feature at least 1 lengthy paragraph tell very similar things (there is much overlap) plus one (the census) is specifically talking about orgs that support it (not independent). Given what the orginization is doing on WP right now, I'd recommend salting.  Username 6892 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An SPI for the suspiciously new users voting in this AfD may also be a good idea.  Username 6892 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally to the speedy deletion per WP:G4, the subject fails WP:NORG & WP:GNG, which was the reason for the previous deletion. There's no significant coverage, almost all of the sources vaguely mention the subject or are not notable, and the only wider coverage is in a "Partner Spotlight" in which the actual informative paragraph (which is added into the article) is organization-provided. This source as well fails the "Independent of the subject" principle from GNG. --StanProg (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete Most of the above discussion is just politics, but the fact is there simply there isn't any significant coverage in independent, reliable source except for the book, which is not enough. If others find new sources, I would be glad to change my vote. Neutral This is a borderline case, but there have been many reliable sources that have been introduced, from the book to other papers, that have pushed me towards being neutral. If I were closing this, which I am certainly not, in my opinion there is no consensus either way. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete I decided to not vote immediatelly and rather look for WP:RS but there isn't really enough. No significant coverage by WP:RS means the article doesn't fullfill even the basic criteria. I wish we kept it like we do with most Diaspora organizations, but this simply isn't enough by itself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 08:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - sorely lacking in reliable sources Spiderone  17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose Comment: I have noticed this page has been deleted once already and is now pending 2nd nomination for deletion. I decided to dig further for sources showing this is a legitimate organization. I made changes to the article and cited numerous books, journals, and reports, including a report by the World Bank, and books/journal publications available on Academia.edu and ProQuest. There seem to be a lot of sources in Greek language books and journals, for which I used Google translate to assist in providing as accurate a translation as possible. This organization is not lacking in reliable sources by any means. All the reliable sources I cited in the article were found in easy Google searches using "United Macedonian Diaspora" academia.edu in the search engine. There are more, which can help confirm their legitimacy.Macedonia1913 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you put the sources that you found and the specific page numbers in the discussion so we can look at them individually? Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zoozaz1 - sure. Here they are - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably:

Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters

Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf

Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf

Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf

Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true

Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for presenting all these sources . That Greek book source seems to cover the UMD in detail, as does the Macedonian Diaspora book. The FMSH source talks about the UMD multiple times. -- Local hero talk 05:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced at all. The sources above do not cover the "Significant coverage" guideline. They just trivially mention the orginazation. I don't speak Greek, but in the proveided Greek source "Ενωμένη Μακεδονική ∆ιασπορά" (including ΕΜ∆) is mentioned just once in the context that they have paid for a study. Local hero, I assume you understand Greek, can you show us an excert of that detailed covering of UMD by the Greek book source that you're mentioning above? --StanProg (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are definitely and absolutely bad:
 * The first source by Zlatko Nikolovski is NOT INDEPENDENT. Its author is described by the UMD as being a "UMD Vienna Representative": SEE LINK. It is also NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE because it was self-published (see page two of the document). This has now made me suspicious of every other source. They all appear to be bad without even needing to look very hard.
 * The second source only offers a series of trivial mentions as per usual. It also does not look like a reliable source. It's a paper for a Greek lobby group, not an academic journal. I don't think we use those on Wikipedia.
 * The third source is a thesis. As we discussed earlier, WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
 * The fourth source is not a reliable source. Its author is described as a PHD candidate. It has not been published for any credible journal. This is a non-scholarly journal: Link to website. Moreover, it only offers trivial mentions as per usual, and does not offer in-depth coverage.
 * The fifth source contains an absolutely tiny trivial mention. Moreover, it is a discussion paper which is not even published by the World Bank. Self-Published, trivial, and unreliable.
 * The sixth source is another unreliable source per it being a dissertation. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." It probably also only offers trivial coverage, but I can't even be bothered reading it fully, it doesn't matter.
 * The seventh source is not a reliable source and only offers incredibly trivial coverage.
 * The eight source is in Greek. None of you, nor I, speak Greek. The person posting this source has admitted to not speaking Greek. See WP:NOENG. Maybe can help translate it. Given the fact that so many trivial, unreliable and non-independent sources have been used to attempt to give this organization notability, both now and before, I find it hard to believe that finally a good source has been found. Clearly people need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try to establish notability for this organization. I remind you that the WP:ORG policy says that EACH INDIVIDUAL source, for it to count towards notability, must "[provide] an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." As Stanprog says, it's unlikely the Greek source does that. And even if it does offer somewhat mediocre coverage, then so what? 2 sources which scrape a bear minimum of coverage hardly fulfills ORGDEPTH or MULTIPLESOURCES. If the organization needs to scrape this hard to find non-trivial coverage, it's a good sign that it isn't notable in the first place. The article as it is, is only an incomplete stub, and this is based on it compiling tonnes of trivial mentions together. The best this organization has come towards establishing notability is 1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book. The only reason that looks good is because everything else looks so bad in contrast. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to StanProg:


 * The Greek source actually spells out "United Macedonian Diaspora" and "UMD" over 20 times in the Journal. The Journal also cites website links and a 3-page bibliography. I took ancient Greek in college so have a basic understanding, however, would have never found the source on Google had the source not had "United Macedonian Diaspora" in English within the Journal. Here are some excerpts:

"Η UMD, όπως αναγράφεται στην περιγραφή της αποστολής της στην ιστοσε- λίδα της (http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/31/67/, πρόσβαση στις 23/7/2011), α- ποτελεί μια «διεθνή, μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση για τα συμφέροντα και τις ανά- γκες των Μακεδόνων και των μακεδονικών κοινοτήτων σε όλο τον κόσμο εκτός"

"στον Μπίτοφ έχει απονεμηθεί το Βραβείο Επιτευγμάτων Μιας Ζωής από την ορ- γάνωση Ενωμένη Μακεδονική Διασπορά (United Macedonian Diaspora – UMD). Ιδιαίτερης προσοχής χρήζει η δήλωση που έκανε κατά την παραλαβή του βραβείου"

"Στις ΗΠΑ τα άρθρα ή οι επιστολές που δημοσιεύονται στον ιστοχώρο της UMD δημοσιεύονται στη συνέχεια από το Κέντρο Πληροφοριών Ανοικτής Πηγής (Open Source Center – OSC) του διευθυντή Εθνικών Πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ και διασπεί- ρονται σε όλα τα υπουργεία των ΗΠΑ, καθώς και στις δεκαεπτά υπηρεσίες και ορ- γανισμούς πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ, χωρίς τις αντίθετες (ελληνικές) απόψεις." Macedonia1913 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Apples&#38;Manzanas


 * Regarding 1st source: I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The book is not by a Zlatko Nikolovski but by Zlatko Nikoloski, Ph.D. The book was found on academia.edu and if you read his biography he resides in Skopje, Macedonia, not Vienna, Austria. I just checked both names on Google, and they are two different people. Your source is from 2010, ten years ago. Zlatko Nikolovski in Vienna, Austria (first source that comes out on Google): https://www.startus.cc/people/zlatko_nikolovski. The photo of Zlatko Nikoloski on Academia.edu is very different. I found another source in case Academia.edu is not a legitimate source: https://www.summerschool.ba/fullscreen-page/comp-jfkwvmay/c0210cfa-37ed-11e8-be88-12dd26dd586a/11/%3Fi%3D11%26p%3DmainPage%26s%3Dstyle-jfjhtds8


 * The book by Zlatko Nikoloski in Skopje, Macedonia, not to be confused with a Zlatko Nikolovski in Vienna, Austria, fully meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is a Reliable source


 * Regarding 2nd source: Regardless of trivial mention or not, it is a journal published on Academia.edu from a reputable source called the American Hellenic Institute, created in 1974, according to their Wikipedia article.


 * Regarding 3rd source: This is a misinterpretation of what a reliable source is according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I found the dissertation on ProQuest and published by a reputable educational institution. In WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it states "Completed dissertations or theses are written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." The dissertation author undergoes interviews with an entire community in Los Angeles County, however, cites reputable sources for her research.


 * Regarding 4th source: From what I can see on that about the link you posted above. E-diasporas.fr is a French publicly funded project by Agence nationale de la recherche, which has a Wikipedia article. They should scientific data to map out Diasporas.


 * Regarding 5th source: How can you prove that it was self-published if published directly by the World Bank, using their logo, and their funds? The link where you can download the World Bank report can be found here: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/558161468239979178/harnessing-the-diaspora-for-development-in-europe-and-central-asia


 * Regarding 6th source: Your interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is incorrect.


 * Regarding 7th source: According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP's news organizations, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The reliable source is the Daily Utah Chronicle, a reputable publication in the state of Utah, which interviews several individuals to produce new content, and not content taken from a news agency like Reuters, Associated Press, which usually only primarily send over news via the wire.


 * Regarding 8th source: See comment above in response to StanProg. While the journal is in Greek, I would have never found it if it did not mention "United Macedonian Diaspora" in English. I took ancient Greek in college and have a basic understanding of Greek to read letters. Furthermore, Google translate is a huge help in translating large parts of texts. "United Macedonian Diaspora" and "UMD" are mentioned more than 20 times in the journal. The author basically wrote an entire journal paper on his views regarding "United Macedonian Diaspora - UMD." Again you have a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Your comment regarding WP:NOENG is inaccurate, because citing non-English sources are allowed as reliable sources so long as there are English translations.


 * Due to your own misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what constitutes WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and what makes me believe a personal vendetta against the organization, you have completely reverted the changes I made using reliable sources. I look forward to the views of the Administrators and whether they believe the sources I cited are reliable, or not, and whether they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements or not. In the end, we are trying to improve Wikipedia articles. Macedonia1913 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree that some of the sources do help with notability in this case. The first source I would say contributes to notability. The second source is really just trivial mentions, however; see WP:SIGCOV. The third source may contribute slightly, but it is still a relatively small mention. The fourth and fifth sources are just trivial mentions of UMD. The sixth source, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." does contribute to notability a bit. The seventh source provides only trivial coverage, and since I can't read Greek I don't know if the 8th source contributes to notability. Overall, I'm not sure if this contributes to notability in full. More experienced editors can probably judge more accurately on this. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like your opinion on my new sources for the article. What do you think? Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to:, sources for notability don't work like that. They don't "contribute slightly" or 'add-up' together. WP:SIRS and WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE make it very clear that an individual source needs to offer in-depth coverage in its own right for it to count toward notability. Then there needs to be multiple sources which each offer this level of in-depth coverage. Each INDIVIDUAL SOURCE must provide "Deep or significant coverage [which] provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." If it does not do this, that source is not entirely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability. Edit: And this is also made clear in WP:MULTSOURCES "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." If it isn't a significant source, then it fails WP:SIRS, and cannnot prove notability. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, the policies you cited are correct. Each individual source must provide in depth coverage. Along with that, the existance of multiple ones need to be demonstrated (that is what I mean when I say add up; does this demonstrate multiple sources contribute to notability?) That is exactly what I evaluated when I said some sources provided trivial coverage, some sources were borderline (eg. contributed slightly) and some sources did provide in depth coverage. In other words, what you say I should do is exactly what I did. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep got it, thanks for your reply. Regarding the sources you think may provide in-depth coverage, see my comment below, they may or may not do this. But I argue that they are not reliable sources in any event, so whether they do provide in-depth coverage is irrelevant as they fail to meet different criteria. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources together provide reliability as well as notoriety. I just discovered a Newsweek article quoting UMD in three paragraphs: https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 - is this not a reliable source Zoozaz1 and Apples&#38;Manzanas? Just curious. In my interpretation, this and many others I noted are reliable sources and in line with WP:SCHOLARSHIP but others do not interpret it that way. Macedonia1913 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because someone is being quoted doesn't mean it is significant coverage. Simply mentioning that someone that you quoted is the head of an organization doesn't make the organization notable. That is exactly what that article does.  Username 6892 19:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If you click on the article itself, it mentions their president. Thus, if they are quoted for a media outlet, they represent their organization. Nowhere did I mention that this constitutes significant coverage. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the point about reliable sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used (as reliable sources) but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." So essentially they are not optimal, but I don't see policy that says they aren't reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zoozaz1 - I agree, no where does WP:SCHOLARSHIP or WP:ORG mention these dissertations or theses are not reliable. The question now is whether how long will this debate of who interprets what as reliable and notable continues. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This AfD is eligible for closure at 05:03 on July 3rd.  Username 6892 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Apples&Manzanas' Reply to Macedonia1913:
 * Regarding the 1st source. It seems you are therefore correct to say it is independent. However, it is still not a reliable source. (A) It is self-published (as shown as page 2 of the document.) (B) It is a dissertation and clearly described as such on the link you provided. (C) Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." There are other policies that also make this very clear. (D) See also: WP:ORGIND "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content." It is only ONCE NOTABILITY IS ESTABLISHED that those kinds of sources may in very limited circumstances be used. Those sources do not establish notability in the first place. (E) The ORGIND policy also makes it clear that "Reliable sources, generally, are third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." Sorry, it's self-published and a dissertation. I'm not wasting any more time on this source -- you are simply just wrong -- and need to learn how Wikipedia works before accusing me maliciously misinterpreting policy. You have only made about 20 edits to Wikipedia so perhaps you should be a little bit more humble before declaring everyone wrong about everything. (WOW, another new Wikipedia editor came to this AFD, what a pure coincidence!).
 * I addressed your second dot point above.
 * The American Hellenic Group is a lobby group, it is not an academic journal which provides peer reviewed scholarly coverage. It is not a reliable source. The burden is always on you to prove it is a reliable source. Moreover, you said "Regardless of trivial mention or not"...What do you mean "regardless"...If it's a trivial mention, then it's entirely irrelevant to this notability debate. Okay great, we agree this source is now useless and should be ignored.
 * I addressed this in my 1st point. You cherry-picked 1 sentence while ignoring every other sentence which shows it isn't a reliable source, especially not for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * None of that proves that "e-diasporas" is a reliable source, at all. That just isn't a reliable source and it's by a "PHD candidate" too. The coverage appears to be trivial anyway. I'm not wasting my time on this source again.
 * How can I prove it was self-published? Maybe I was wrong, my apologies, it did say: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not reflect the view of the World Bank Group." I may have misinterpreted that. I'm still not sure it counts as a reliable source because it's only a working paper for a peer-assisted learning discussion series. In any case, none of this matters because it's an absolutely and extremely trivial mention. I've gone through this before, trivial mentions do not make an organization notable. Reliable or not - that source does nothing to establish notability under the ORG policy. Let's not waste time discussing sources which so clearly fall short of WP:ORGDEPTH.
 * My interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is correct. This was already agreed upon by literally every editor in the AFD before you came. Theses and dissertations can in limited circumstances be cited, but they never count toward reliable sources for the purposes of notability. This is made clear in not only WP:SCHOLARSHIP but also WP:ORGIND as well as throughout the WP:ORG policy.
 * Tiny local newspapers like the Utah Chronicle, which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, are not considered reliable sources. Only "well-established" newspapers are considered reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG, as you yourself said. In fact many many major news organizations aren't even reliable sources: such as Metro and International Business Times (see WP:RSP). Tiny local newspapers no one knows are definitely not RS or "well-established". In any case, the coverage was trivial, so this source is irrelevant in any event.
 * Regarding the Greek source, yes this is a reliable source, I don't question that. The question is whether it provides in-depth coverage. You can't even read the source you have no way of knowing whether it does. The quotes you gave don't demonstrate significant and in-depth coverage at all. The Greek source certainly has not made the UMD the subject of the source, and from what you've shown, it certainly doesn't provide an in-depth overview of the organization as required by the WP:ORGDEPTH policy. Even if it does provide in-depth coverage, this will have been the one and only source which does this. Which is insufficient per WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:SIRS and WP:ORGCRITE. A high bar is required to prove notability, not little scraps of mentions here and there. It's evident that no source has ever made this organization the subject of coverage.
 * I find it funny to be accused of having deliberately misinterpreted Wikipedia policy in a vendetta against this organization. I'm sure all these editors voting to keep with under 50 edits are the absolute masters of Wikipedia policy, and me who has made more edits than all them put together knows absolutely nothing about Wikipedia's policies. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to Apples&#38;Manzanas:


 * I took at a read at WP:ORGIND posted by Apples&#38;Manzanas, and it states the following: Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose. A
 * All of the reliable sources I used are independent authors with no affiliation to the organization. I researched and could not find any affiliation of the authors to the organization, thus their work meets the independence requirement.
 * In conducting further research I discovered the organization's leadership has been interviewed by numerous publications and TV stations (all simple Google searches), example:

https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting someone is not significant coverage.  Username 6892 20:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I did not state the link was significant coverage. The media articles, together, with all the books/journals/mentions/trivial (or not) mentions, all reliable sources should constitute that the organization is a legitimate organization. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia doesn't equal legitimacy. UMD is a legitimate organization which probably does represent some of their target group, but that doesn't mean it's notable.  Username 6892 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.trtworld.com/video/the-newsmakers/will-macedonians-vote-to-change-the-name-of-their-country/5bae3f7e58cd863d6877048f
 * Quoting the org's president isn't significant coverage
 * Not a reliable source either per: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Vj-QqZ8bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHthAvpwqiI
 * These 2 videos both document the organization's president's stance on the change of the country's name. Someone's opinion is not significant coverage of an organization that they lead.  Username 6892 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.balkaninsider.com/balkan-insider-exclusive-interview-with-united-macedonian-diaspora-president-metodija-koloski-on-umd-and-name-agreement/
 * I'm not sure what the policy on interviews like this is. Perhaps another editor can see for themself?  Username 6892 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to . It doesn't matter what the policy is. This is a tiny website with 1000 twitter followers, it isn't a mainstream news organization. It fails being a reliable source. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The number of twitter followers an organization has does not determine if a source is reliable. This essay seems to be useful in determining if it contributes to notability. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that, my point is that it's a random small website not a "well-established" news-organization. It isn't a reliable source for other reasons: it appears to be run by only 2 people, no evidence of rigorous editorial policies or fact-checking, or leadership teams. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT2012Macedonia_final.pdf
 * Quoting the organization isn't significant coverage

https://harriman.columbia.edu/event/western-balkans-macedonia-and-integrative-process-what-role-diaspora
 * Even if this was significant coverage of the organization's president, notability is not inherited.

https://www.rferl.org/a/north-macedonia-honeyland-oscars-disappointment-country-proud/30426116.html
 * Quoting the president isn't significant coverage

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/macedonia-quiet-crossroads
 * 3 lines isn't significant coverage

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/greece-accused-of-genocide-of-macedonian-people/1081780
 * The joint statement isn't significant coverage (quoting someone)

https://www.voanews.com/europe/macedonian-president-veto-name-deal-greece


 * I also discovered the organization has testified before Congress several times and their testimonies are of public nature. If Congress allows them to testify are they not notable? Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Testifying before the U.S. congress is not a notability criterion.  Username 6892 20:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe we are trying to establish that there are enough reliable sources that establish legitimacy that the organization is real and deserves a Wikipedia article. Based on all the materials presented the organization meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:ORG WP:MULTSOURCES, which states For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". All of the sources are unrelated and are beyond multiple. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Independent sources states "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." All the sources are by unrelated people. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NONPROFIT WP:NGO Non-commercial organizations section states that Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. - based on the materials and the discussion above the organization has met both these standards of WP:ORG Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. We have already acknowledged that this organization has been mentioned by multiple independent reliable sources. However this is irrelevant. The organization needs to be given significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Please read through everything I've already written on this AFD. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * significant coverage lists several examples of significant/substantial coverage. It states on Wikipedia that "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization." We've established that the organization has had two book passages and two scholarly articles, as well as ongoing media coverage as evident by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It also says "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." This article and this article do not come close to meeting that requirement, you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. The UMD isn't even the main focus of those news articles, at all... Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

'''Brief response by Apples&Manzanas to Macedonia1913: Sigh. Most of those sources were already known about, they are either unreliable or do not provide significant coverage:'''
 * 1) I can only assume you haven't read anything I've said. Those sources you provided previously -- most of them -- are not reliable sources for reasons which have nothing to do with them being independent or not. Yes, they are independent, but they are not reliable sources. You clearly have little idea of how Wikipedia policy works and have not read what I wrote. Sources can be unreliable sources for reasons which have nothing to do with whether they are independent or not.
 * 2) Newsweek post-2013 is not a reliable source. "There is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013."Per: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280. The coverage is extremely trivial anyway. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
 * 3) Youtube isn't a reliable source, especially if not coming from an official verified account. WP:RSPYT. In any case, someone being interviewed does not give significant coverage to the organization because he is not discussing the organization. "If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." See WP:INHERITORG. Those interviews were not about the organization and they are trash sources anyway.
 * 4) The Balkaninsider source is not a reliable source. It is a random website with a tiny 1000 twitter followers, it is not a credible or mainstream source in any way. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
 * 5) AA is not a reliable source for international relations per WP:RSP: "In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." Only gives extremely trivial coverage anyway. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
 * 6) Freedom House probably isn't a reliable source. It only provides one sentence of coverage as far as I can be bothered seeing. A collection of trivial sources do not make something notable.
 * 7) Everyone already knew about sources like VOA and Radio Free Liberty. They may or may not be reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage...at all.
 * 8) The other sources you've mentioned which I haven't seen before are unreliable sources and/or they don't provide significant coverage. I can't spend hours of my time responding to every single trivial and unreliable source you manage to dig up. Stop posting so many sources, quantity does not matter, quality does. If you think you've found three good and in-depth sources then please show them or let me know what I've missed. You don't have any excuse to continue to flood this AFD with trivial sources. This is just a waste of space/time. If you can point out 3 in-depth sources, then do it, but I've made it very clear what Wikipedia's policies are. WP:ORGDEPTH makes it very clear that quality is the only thing which matters, not quantity. So find the three best sources you can, so we don't waste our time discussing the junk ones. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, Apples&#38;Manzanas keeps raising the bar for this organization, and it further proves my point that he has a personal vendetta against the organization.
 * 1) The bar has been raised to 3 in-depth sources, yet WP:ORGDEPTH makes no mention of how many in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.
 * 2) VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are reliable sources, and clearly the article uses them as sources. If they were not reliable, why does the article use them in the citations?
 * 3) The European Diaspora in Australia is a reliable source.
 * 4) The Macedonian Diaspora: Key to the Development of the Republic of Macedonia is a reliable source.
 * 5) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOMELAND AND DIASPORA: THE CASE OF GREECE AND THE GREEK-AMERICAN COMMUNITY is a reliable source.
 * 6) The Greek language journal has been translated into English and is a reliable source.
 * 7) 4 book/journal reliable sources. The media is a whole different story, and rather not get into that. It is open to interpretation. The books and journal writings elaborating on the organization's activities are enough reliable sources. World Bank, Freedom House, Congress, Census even making one mention of the organization confirms they exist. Their coverage of the organization seems to be related to diaspora studies and how that relates to the homeland of certain diaspora. If the organization, which is named "United Macedonian Diaspora," is being written about in academic journals and books, it has a broad reach. We've established this is the case. You, on the other hand, want to continue debating and prolonging the discussion.
 * 8) I definitely have an excuse to respond to your misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Wikipedia guides and rules. As I have mentioned before, it is up to the Admins to decide. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Brief reply - you clearly haven't read what I've written.
 * I didn't say you had to provide 3 in-depth sources. I was saying that it would be better to discuss 3 sources rather than 300. Are you now admitting you don't have 3 in-depth sources? Great. In general you do need multiple in-depth sources, per WP:MULTSOURCES. I guess you want to interpret that as the bear minimum of 2 in-depth sources. Many editors wouldn't agree this is enough, see WP:THREESOURCES. You don't have 2 in-depth sources anyway.
 * Oh my god...I literally never said that VOA and RFE were not reliable sources. They do not, however, provide significant coverage. They are therefore irrelevant to this notability debate. Yes the organization has been mentioned before by some reliable sources...It needs to receive significant coverage from reliable sources.
 * Yes, it's a reliable source. 1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book is arguably not in-depth coverage. That isn't even a passage. I don't think this source passes significance tests, but if it does, then it barely scrapes through. I admit that this has been the best source so far. But I also remind you you need multiple in-depth sources.
 * I gave you over 5 reasons earlier why that self-published thesis is not a reliable source and does not count towards notability. This is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm not going to repeat myself.
 * I gave you countless reasons why this dissertation was not a reliable source. This is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm not going to repeat myself.
 * This is a reliable source, I literally said that. I disputed whether it provides in-depth coverage. You admitted you couldn't read Greek and had to use google translate, so don't pretend like it does. Your track record of assessing in-depth coverage is terrible, so I'm not going to believe you after you've spammed hundreds of trivial and/or unreliable sources previously. You said you don't speak Greek and the quotes you provided demonstrated very insignificant coverage.
 * I addressed all those sources. This is WP:ICANTHEARYOU again. I won't repeat myself.
 * You've made about 100 edits to Wikipedia, stop pretending like you know everything. I wonder how you came across this AFD? Just pure chance I'm sure. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to Apples&#38;Manzanas for providing links to relevant Wikipedia pages discussing notability. Under WP:AUD, it states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." - With all the media sources provided the organization has definitely received ample coverage in numerous media outlets around the world based on a simple Google search, or a Google news search. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE" is the key word there. It doesn't say that insignificant coverage from international media is evidence of notability. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources. To establish notability, however, we need significant coverage (more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material). We have two book sources that meet that: The European Diaspora in Australia and the Greek book (machine translation can give you a good idea here if you need it, also the book writes UMD in Latin letters). We've got an article (not particularly lengthy) from the US census bureau about the organization. Then, we have sources that are so-so because they're self-published or scholarly thesis sources. Finally, we have other sources that range from a few paragraphs about UMD to a few sentences. We've all encountered articles on Wikipedia with far less than this and I'm still confident a decent article can exist from these references. I'll leave it at that. -- Local hero talk 02:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Published scholarly sources are usually considered the most reliable of all, . See WP:SOURCETYPES. The discussion here is very long though, and I suspect you might be referring to a PhD thesis, in which case I am more inclined to agree that it's "so-so". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Response to Local Hero:
 * What do you mean "we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources"...this was agreed from the very beginning...don't desperately pretend like this is some breakthrough development in the discussion. I remind you yet again that sources only count towards notability if they are SIGNIFICANT and reliable and independent and secondary and there must be multiple sources which meet all of these requirements. "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability."
 * The PHD theses in non-academic journals are not "so-so", and nor are they "scholarly", they are entirely useless for the purposes of establishing notability as per the myriad of quotes from the relevant policies I've already given. They didn't seem significant either, not that this matters, because they are unreliable anyway.
 * It has never been agreed that the 'European Diaspora in Australia' gives significant coverage, if that's the best source you have -- that's very poor.
 * Now regarding the Greek source, both Local Hero and Macedonia1913 have admitted to having to use Google Translate to read it. I'm highly suspicious they've even done this, considering how unreadable it is on Google Translate and how long it takes to copy and paste each passage on the pages that were mentioned. Now I've spent many hours Google Translating this on the pages you mentioned and all I could find were extremely trivial mentions. Moreover, it's very clear that the Greek source is not addressing the topic and directly and in detail and nor is it giving it the organization the kind of in-depth coverage which makes it possible to write more than a stub article. The only thing the Greek source does is name the organization in a few different places. A few sentences of coverage is not an in-depth overview. This is even worse than the 'European diaspora in Australia' book, which is at best, extremely borderline (1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book). Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Local hero  talk and Cordless Larry:

If you visit WP:EMSC, you will note the following: '''Whether something is enough for significant coverage is up to the discretion of the editor(s) involved. The general notability guideline is extremely vague on this matter. The only thing it states in addition to the two examples quoted above are "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.''' The arguments laid out above by certain editors are null and void in this case.

Here are the key sources I found on the organization, which prove that there are enough materials on the organization to constitute a Wikipedia article - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably:

Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters

Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf

Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf

Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf

Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true

Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia1913 (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Response to Macedonia1913:
 * You should firstly need to know that the WP:ORG policy is the more relevant policy for assessing notability here, not the GNG. If you read WP:ORGCRITE you would know that the ORG policy is actually made to be harder to meet notability requirements than the GNG. The ORG policy also clarifies what constitutes significant coverage. The essay you linked is an essay by an individual Wikipedia editor, it is not a Wikipedia policy. Stop spamming those sources, many of which you now know are not reliable sources. (I had this response written before you posted the Australian Parliamentary website...I'll have a look at this new source now.) Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In my research, this morning, I discovered the organization featured on the Australian Parliament website:

Chapter 2 of Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia features the United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts to improve Australian diplomacy.

In the chapter "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) suggested that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT for ‘political, cost-cutting and diplomatic reasons without any meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders like parliamentarians, the corporate sector, diasporas, and citizen diplomacy organisations’. There was often a mismatch, it suggested, between political and bureaucratic priorities and the priorities of key stakeholders. An example given by the UMD was the poor representation in Africa despite the Australian mining industry’s priorities."

On the topic of honorary consuls "The United Macedonian Diaspora agreed that honorary consuls were ‘used by many countries as a way of reaching out to various societies with minimal investment.’ If they were provided with resources they could initiate ‘high impact projects’, but ‘without funding it is just talk and very little action.’"

"The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) provided the following reasons for opening an Australian post in Skopje:

the country was growing economically through developing economic relations with ‘the east’ including the Gulf states;

an embassy would strengthen ties at the government, business, academic, and sporting levels; and

an embassy would serve the ‘unmet needs of tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe.’"

"The UMD also suggested that: Australia still does not have an embassy in the Republic of Macedonia in order to appease Athens and the Hellenic lobby in Australia rather than advance its own commercial and strategic interests in Southeast Europe."

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jfadt/Overseas%20Representation/report/chapter2

In another report published by the Parliament of Australia Chapter 8 on Diaspora communities, it states:

"The United Macedonian Diaspora notes that ‘diaspora’ now alludes to the global, social, economic, political and environmental networks established by migrant communities to help build the capacity of both their home and host countries."

"Appearing before the Committee, the United Macedonian Diaspora provided specific examples of how diaspora communities open up the Australian market to foreign investment and business opportunities. One example is the settled Italian diaspora in Australia. While acknowledging that Italian businesses are dissuaded by Australia’s distance, DFAT informed the Committee that an increasingly diverse range of Italian businesses are setting up contracts in Australia due to a climate of confidence, trust and familiarity: There have been decisions by some of the larger agricultural Italian companies like Monini, which is a major olive oil producing company, to buy land and produce olive oil in Australia."

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/report/chapter8.pdf

Macedonia1913 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reply: No, again these are incredibly trivial sources. This and this source are just more trivial sources. Spamming a series insignificant mentions does give anything notability. If you want to actually prove that this organization is actually notable, then find something at least better than this book. Page 68 of that book is your best source so far, anything worse than that book is entirely a waste of time. If you can show me something better than that book, I'll be the first person to say this organization should have a Wikipedia page. Flooding this page with thousands of sources that fail to give significant coverage is only an attempt to hide the fact that no sources have given this organization significant coverage. If you can't find anything equal to or better than that book then we're wasting our time. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply:Again, we are called to debate your misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy. Plenty of sources establish the organization as notable, two books, two journals, two theses, numerous articles, and now two Australian Parliament reports. You keep raising the bar for this organization. Why does this issue matter so much to you? Is it personal? Did they do something to you? The article exists, it's properly cited, and you keep changing and removing properly cited sources. Macedonia1913 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: You have not actually understood any of the relevant policies. And yes, I remove sources that are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. Why does it matter to me? The fact that so much of my time has been taken up by having to argue that 1+1=2 is cause for a little annoyance, but I'm happy to play my part to make sure Wikipedia policy is upheld. I've deleted other organizations before, so it's nothing personal, just other organizations don't seem to have so many invested editors arguing to keep at all costs. We should both stop talking now to make the closing admin's job somewhat easier. I think we've both made our viewpoints clear. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Jingiby (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC) this is a duplicate vote.  Username 6892 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose deletion I am not going to mention anything further, everything has been discussed. My final verdict on this is that the organization has notability, thus the Wikipedia page should exist. Dikaiosyni (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) This is a duplicate vote.  Username 6892 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Maybe the organisation is notable. But after all this discussion, no-one has added references to the article that provide sufficient evidence of notability. The sources by Barkan (currently numbered 6) and Papavizas (7) count for a little, the rest don't help. Two weak sources is not enough. Maproom (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion Maybe article is not in the best possible quality, but this organization exists and with simple Google search you find a lot of sources, it is not that is some club of 10 people. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion I really don't understand how some people can spend so much time and effort to argue that something shouldn't exist on Wikipedia when it's probably much easier to improve the article and enrich the encyclopedia. The organisation evidently exists and this is not a clear-cut case for deletion, so it's reasonable and in the spirit of Wikipedia to err on the side of keeping it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's worth noting that both of the above accounts are Ethnic Macedonians as their Wikipedia user pages (current versions) demonstrate. Likely not coming from a standpoint of NPOV, especially since they want to play 'I can't hear you' with the ORG policy. But I thank them both for letting me know this organization "exists", I previously thought it was entirerly imaginary!! Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should definitely calm down, stop with the persistent rules-lawyering throughout the page and refrain from ethnic labelling of other users. Those participating in the discussion know the notability criteria very well or can easily digest them in order to form their opinion. You mentioned canvassing but you're the one who raised 'alarming flag' on a user's talk page; you're arguing against an article that you're heavily editing at the same time. This behaviour is counterproductive and it really doesn't help the discussion at all. We don't have any sort of objectively defined cut-off for what passes notability and it's clear that this is a borderline case as pointed out by some users above. In such cases, we typically err on the side of inclusion conditional to immediate improvements and you're encouraged to help that work but not to undermine it. You've already stated your opinion on this in detail and so be it. Others will either agree or disagree with you but you're not entitled to judge every single opinion that you don't like or disagree with nor your opinion is superior simply because you're the loudest voice in citing rules.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I spoke to one editor about the fact that this organizations' members have been publicly announcing they will/have been forming wikipedia squads to push a point-of-view on Wikipedia whilst this page was being flooded with new editors with a connection to North Macedonia voting to keep. Whilst basically every editor not related to North Macedonia votes to delete. It's very telling that you are not at all concerned about this organization's attempts to create "Wikipedia Warriors" or all those highly supicious votes, but you are deeply concerned that I alerted one experienced editor about this situation, because I did not know how to handle this kind of unprecedented conduct. Haha yeah, nice logic there. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you keep up behaving in the same fashion as before by rules-lawyering, sticking to every non-agreeing user, casting doubt about canvassing/meatpuppetry and echoing that there's ongoing agenda on this page. You've already been warned on several occasions by different users that you've stated your opinion pretty clear and please give others the chance to do the same. We know very well what's going on here, who's who and for what purpose, and we don't need a self-appointed moderator to open our eyes. The administrator who will close this discussion knows that very well and will surely not stumble upon your efforts to mask out users but rather look at the sensible argumentation for the article to be deleted/kept and the progress that this discussion has led to in that context. The only thing that you may get from unnecessarily loading this page with re-iterated comments about rules and user experience of those commenting is be stripped of the chance to participate. I urge you for the last time to think about your participation before reporting your behaviour and requesting closure on the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Kiril let's be honest this has to be one of the most blatant examples of canvassing/meatpuppetry, they have literal videos and graphics promoting their organisation's Wikipedia Taskforce to 'stop the deligitimilization of Macedonians'. I believe that Dikaiosyni, Тутуноберач and Macedonia1913 are all members of United Macedonia Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. As well as the latest addition MuzoKral who joined and straight away starting editing the UMD page. Even when you include the votes by these 4 users it is not a borderline case. Also I am not sure if you have read this whole thread as people that have been voting for the deletion of this page have been called Bulgarians lmao. --James Richards (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw the videos that you linked to in your introduction and it's fair to assume that members of the organisation deliberately come to defend the article from deletion but this has nothing to do with notability. The organisation has evidently gained enough attention so that the article can be considered a borderline case and it's completely irrelevant if this attention was paid to because of the Macedonian culture they promote in the diaspora, the spread of nationalism and ethnocentrism or the siding with politicians from other countries. The notion of notability here on Wikipedia doesn't depend on the moral sentiments of someone's actions, so it's inappropriate to argue that the article should be deleted because it documents an organisation whose members engage in dishonest activities.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with here. The ultra-nationalism and the name-calling on both sides is not conducive whatsoever to a reasonable discussion on sourcing or for that matter Wikipedia at all. Half of this discussion is accusations of ulterior motives and most of the other half are unhelpful comments with a vague reference to policy but mainly just POV-pushing. This all distracts from reasonably evaluating the sources. I'm changing my !vote to Neutral based on the sources provided. They are not perfect, but no question this is a significant organization that more importantly has been significantly covered (in total) in multiple reliable sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought notability mainly depends on the quality of sources provided not how much Bulgarian and Macedonians argue about keeping it, with other nationalities being called Macedonians or Bulgarians based on who they side with. Hopefully the admins can make their decision soon and either keep this article or delete and salt it. Have a nice day. --James Richards (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The reason why this deletion nomination has taken so long is due to the 'Wikipedia Taskforce' assembled by this organization to make sure that their page doesn't get deleted again. You can find all the evidence about this above. --James Richards (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion The United Macedonian Diaspora was described in the United States Congressional Record by U.S. Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr, Democrat representing the 9th District of New Jersey, as "the only Washington, DC based international organization representing Macedonians and Macedonian communities around the world." The United States Congressional record is a publication of the United States government and indisputably a reliable source. MuzoKral (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (This new user is likely associated with the United Macedonian Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. It is best not to allow brand new users to vote due to the activities of this organization.) --James Richards (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion The detractors of this article who are advocating for deletion are citing as cause the Wikipedia Guidelines on "Significant coverage." Disingenuously, however, the detractors are not applying the entire guideline to this article. Per wikipedia: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, BUT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL." As evidenced above by many editors opposed to deletion, the United Macedonian Diaspora has been cited in many credible news media outlets and scholarly articles. True, perhaps the UMD wasn't always the "main topic" but Wikipedia guidelines don't require that. MuzoKral (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)(This new user is likely associated with the United Macedonian Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. It is best not to allow brand new users to vote due to the activities of this organization.Please stop voting after your previous votes have been annuled due to the reasons stated.)--James Richards (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment on the above comments by MuzoKral: MuzoKral has only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia before coming here. This has to be noted. . Regarding this new source, it consists of one sentence of coverage, please learn the difference between a reliable source and a reliable significant source. Also learn the difference between the GNG and the ORG policy. You have only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia before coming here...Random chance you found this AFD/organization, right? Wow this must be the world's most popular organization considering the number of very new editors voting to keep! Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: You might want to see this diff.  Username 6892 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Strong Belief and Proof that Organization is Being Targeted, Harassed, and Bullied (See: WP:BULLY)

According to the article Diaspora politics in the United States, the United Macedonian Diaspora is mentioned as the main organization for the ethnic group Macedonian-Americans. I reviewed the Wikipedia pages for several similar organizations listed on the same Wikipedia page and most of them use sources from their websites and publications, yet they all have pages on Wikipedia and no deletion requests. I am not posting this comment to draw attention that other organizational pages should be deleted by any means - Wikipedia is enriched by having all these pages, including that of the United Macedonian Diaspora. Based on all of this evidence provided, the sources, these pages, it is more than clear that this organization is being targeted by a group of editors on Wikipedia with some agenda - I do not know what that agenda is and what they hope to accomplish by having this organizational page deleted. WP:BULLY is the obvious definition of what these editors have been doing towards this organization.

Some examples of other organizational pages with self-publishing sources: Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of America, Arab American Institute, American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, Polish American Congress, Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

Several of these pages have the following message at the top "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, none of them are up for deletion. Why weren't the same standards applied to the United Macedonian Diaspora? How are they any different? Macedonia1913 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Like these pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Italian_American_Foundation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Turkish_Friendship_Council ? --James Richards (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

, you can see me making all the same arguments to delete pages like this and this one. You need to stop making personal character attacks like this. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We have already had this argument already on this thread, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. --James Richards (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also say the difference is simply due to the fact that they are different organizations, with a different amount of sources covering them. This organization is up for deletion simply because of notability, as determined by reliable, independent sources, and apparently those other articles have notability as determined by reliable, independent sources. If they don't I would put those ones up for deletion. This is not about ethnicity; this is about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a side note, sources from their own website do not contribute to notability but can be used to verify basic facts about an organization. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion I always thought that encyclopedias were to document, people, organizations, events and everything that happens, now I see that we have a situation that people will choose what should be documented and what should not be, this reminds me of censorship, bigotry and hatred something that we all as humanity tend to eradicate or am I wrong? For me the Ehrenfest theorem is important for others they will hear this for the first time should we delete it because it is not relevant for 99.99 % of the population? Let this article be and we will see how it will grow and develop in the future. Hope is that this North Korean wish for censorship of this article will end now and the information on English for this reality will be present for readers to read it and decide by their own mind is it credible, relevant or what ever those against it find it not to be.Инокентиј (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^Another wikipedia editor with under 50 edits who miraculously found this page and is voting to keep. Another amazing coincidence. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Apples& per Wikipedia policy, Please do not bite the newcomers, Assume good faith, don't be a WikiVampire and of course, limit Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that should start a discussion on the COI noticeboard if they're seroius enough about this.
 * Editing before a nomination doesn't equal not being canvassed.
 * Why hasn't this AfD been closed yet?  Username 6892 02:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ^^This editor had also made approxiately 50 edits when they first voted to keep. Another amazing coincidence, Wikipedia must be advertising this AFD article to all new editors. Not all of those are Wikipedia policies by the way. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I want to remind you again, per Wikipedia policy, Please do not bite the newcomers, Assume good faith, don't be a WikiVampire and of course, limit Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni. Also, as noted from my editing history, you can see that I was editing on Wikipedia before the article nomination. Stop throwing accusations around. This discussion is about notability anyway. Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a statement of fact that you had only made approximately 50 edits at the point in time when you first voted to keep. If you think that is an "accusation" then you have no understanding of reality. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does not necessarily mean "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what articles should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything" and not an indiscriminate collection of anything verifiable. So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

see also WP:NOTHING

Also Инокентиј maybe while you are at it with battling censorship, bigotry and hatred maybe look at some of the articles on the Macedonian Wikipedia about Alexander the Great, Tsar Samuil and Gotse Delchev. And maybe make them more 'encyclopedic'. --James Richards (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles you mention from the Macedonian Wikipedia are encyclopedic enough in that they document the prevailing views in the Macedonian-language sources. You can find similar preference towards sources in the underlying languages in other Wikipedias. But if you think that sources in other languages would make the content on the Macedonian Wikipedia more 'encyclopedic', then bringing Macedonian-language sources to prove the notability of this article would have to immediately close this discussion with an obvious result 'Keep'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The Macedonian Wikipedia is famous for its unique historiogaphy that describes certain famous figures such a Aristotle and Alexander the Great, Cyril and Methodius as Macedonian while all the other Wikipedias have their identity listed as Greek, Byzantian or Hellenic. And not sure what you mean about only using Macedonian language sources when Macedonian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia is full of foreign language sources. --James Richards (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No need for anymore Martin Luther King Jr. speeches please, the reason I nominated this up for deletion was 'Not a notable organization with very little coverage.'. So maybe keep it about the sources rather than going of on a tangent about what Wikipedia should be and how people are trying to censor Macedonians. I have already been called a Bulgarian multiple times. --James Richards (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The more excitement this discussion creates the more I think the article should be kept. And I think the voices of people who are Macedonian should count louder than those who arent. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I noted that it's a much better idea to work on improving the article rather then waste time and effort on undermining notability in my very first comment above and I therefore decided to make a step forward in finding additional reliable sources. Some of them are listed in turn:


 * Ristic, R.; Antoniska, M. & Dumitrescu, L. (2010). Macedonian Diaspora - Macedonian Expatriates, People of Macedonian Descent. LLC Books. ISBN 1157263453. [This is a book about the Macedonian diaspora that does mention the United Macedonian Diaspora as a representative organisation in the United States.] Stricken as per the comment immediately below.
 * Barkan, E. R. (2013). Immigrants in American History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration (4 Volume Set). ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1598842197. [This is a comprehensive book about many immigrant groups in the United States throughout history. There are several pages on the Macedonians with explicit information about the United Macedonian Diaspora. I've already added some additional information from this book in the article's 'Overview' section.]


 * I don't think that the lack of multiple reliable sources is an issue any more as The European Diaspora in Australia: An Interdisciplinary Perspective is no longer the only source presented. I'd like to further encourage those users sharply contesting the notability of this organisation to make a thorough search themselves because it's probable that there are even additional reliable sources that married together with what we have so far will surely improve the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that Books LLC books are based on Wikipedia articles, so aren't considered reliable (see also WP:CIRCULAR). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I get it but my main goal was to encourage other users to spend more time and effort on finding reliable sources to improve the article rather than engage in rules-lawyering and ethnic labelling. The reluctance to get involved in something productive and undermine it to the contrary doesn't help the development of Wikipedia. If my superficial search ended up with something new, then it's highly probable that others would easily get to reliable sources as well. It's a matter of goodwill.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this comment boils down to "trust us, we'll find sources". I think that WP:TOOSOON may apply. As well, if you find significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, this page will likely survive an AfD (assuming a 3rd one happens). If the page is deleted and salted, you should probably make a draft article and show it to an admin.  Username 6892 18:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski - perhaps you can advise and help improve the article with my edits, which some of the above users kept deleting saying they were not credible sources, even logging a copyright claim against me. In the history section you'll be able to see edits I made to help improve the article. Unfortunately, now I cannot submit edits as it seems the page is protected. My sources, 8 to be exact, one in Greek, which I translated, can be found above in the discussion which was hidden.

My edits:

In the book "The Macedonian Diaspora: Key to the Development of the Republic of Macedonia," Dr. Zlatko Nikoloski writes that the United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) "is a high-level “think-tank”, seated in the world “seat of power”, Washington, with a "representative office and activities organized in Australia, of which the mission is to constitute a powerful Macedonian" voice "consisting of young Macedonians"...."globally unifying the Macedonian Diaspora, thus helping the development of the Republic of Macedonia.."

Source: https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

According to Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia, United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts improve Australian diplomacy. An example of this is UMD's proposal that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT, instead of other stakeholders, due to political, cost-cutting, and diplomatic reasons. Another example of this is their proposal of opening an Australian Embassy in Skopje, claiming that country's economy is expanding and establishing ties with 'the East', that an embassy would strengthen ties at multiple levels, and that an embassy would be beneficial for of "tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe."

Two Sources:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jfadt/Overseas%20Representation/report/chapter2 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/report/chapter8.pdf

Thank you!

Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The 2 bottom sources demonstrate some coverage of those opinions which the organization has, but not of the organization itself. Attributing opinions to someone doesn't give that person significant coverage. I think that the 1st book source you showed is more marginal to me as a source to make an organization notable (you need multiple of those). Perhaps the closing admin can look into this.  Username 6892 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to request an edit to the article, please do so on the talk page.  Username 6892 21:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be wary of the first source. Anyone can post something on Academia.edu, and I don't see any indication it's been peer reviewed. It looks more like a Word document than a properly typeset book. It contains a lot of typos. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Cordless Larry and @User:Username6892, I appreciate your opinion, however, it was not directed towards you. The Australian Parliament committee featured the organization in their two reports, they are independent and reliable sources. As far as the 1st source, I see that it has a Macedonian version on Academia.edu, which I assume was the first publication and then the book was translated into English. If you'd like I am happy to provide the Macedonian version link, and our expert Macedonian language translators on Wikipedia could perhaps translate into English to ensure no typos. I found the ISBN 978-9989-57-929-5, in case it is useful. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.