Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Greek Empire 2

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Greek Empire

Original AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian Greek Empire

Repeating what was posted by David Gerard, the original proponent of deletion for this page:"Somewhere between advocacy and advertising. No independent verifiability." This page has so far failed to prove that this is an actual, existing concept , or that it has any backing in either Greece or Serbia.The only time something relevant to this idea has surfaced was as a part of diplomatic maneuvering of Yugoslavia's Milosevic administration(as indicated in links #2 and #3).Both that administration and the state entity that it represented do not exist anymore.

The references used in an attempt to prove that this is an existing concept are, in order of presentation: 1:Quotes from people universally considered as radicals, without any references at all as to their veracity. 2:An internet poll (inherently unreliable)without any relevant data(source,oraganiser,polled population,duration,methodology).This poll could have easily be created by everyone with basic knowledge of MSpaint. 3:Vague references to famous people and " various organizations", again without a single reference or at least a name. 4:References to the Neobyzantine movement, which actually contradict the concept of a union between the two states.The second quote provided outlines a very vague concept of an "Orthodox Union" that does not relate at all to the matter discussed in this page.("magine one country - from Adriatic sea to Korea, and from Sinai desert to the North Sea.. With millions of churches all over.. With prosperity, wealth and peace,.. Faith strong as rocks in everyone") 5:Links to pages "in support of the union" which are nothing but mostly empty personal sites (site #1),news repositories (site #2), and an 8 thread forum where people argue about whether the opposing poster is gay or not.(site #3).

Furthermore, I would like to point out the repeated use of sockpuppetry and vote renaming used in the previous vote by users "Serbohellas", "Maninjar" and "Slav" and the anon 68.148.93.27.It is obvious that there are people who want this page in wikipedia, ignoring the community's consensus.If the previous vote had adequately screened its voters, this article would have been deleted. Jsone 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added reasoning for Deletion.Exactly like this article's first AfD, this one has also been swamped with "keep" votes by one edit users who registered after the poll began.Now, we're supposed to assume good faith in wikipedia, so i'm not going to cry "sockpuppets"(again).However, I would urge the closing admin to exercise caution when counting this poll's votes.--Jsone 02:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that user Jsone wants to see this article deleted so badly, that he fails to see the fact that it actually possess many accurate details. While perhaps SOME revision may be necessary, this article should DEFINATELY remain! Crvena zvezda 23:51, 12 December (UTC)

CommentWhether or not some of the information in this page is accurate or not(which we cannot know), there has not been any proof that this is an existing and notable movement.As I said in my nomination, a couple of private statements (which some people try to elevate to the status of an official proposal, even though it never reached this stage) by former national leaders are not a movement, or notable.No proof has so far surfaced that this exists as a political idea today outside a couple of pages in geocities.--Jsone 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A couple of private statements by former national leaders are not a movement, or notable." Quite the contrary! Both times this was more than a mere "private statement". As Critias put it, they were events that received news coverage around the world. It also sparked a wave of nationalism from a number of radical groups and leaders, most notabley being obviously Karadzic. The reason that this issue is somewhat vaguely remembered is because of the other more prominent political events that happened throuhgout the Balkans during this time.Crvena zvezda 6:24, 13 December (UTC)

Keep. I think deleting is somewhat premature Bobafett1234 3:27 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the above This is the user's first and only edit in Wikipedia.[[1]]--Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can assure you that the concept presented in this article is not an unheard-of, radical opinion. While it may be in its infancy, the idea of a Serbo-Greek Union is gaining popularity in Krusevac, Belgrade, and even Kragujevac. I know this because I have worked in Serbia and have heard conversations and discussions about this very topic. Deleting this article would undermine one of Wikipedia's crucial virtues - that is, direct relation to emerging public opinion at a far greater rate than any other encylopedia.Slacvo_Milos 10:35 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the aboveThis is this user's first and only edit in wikipedia.[[2]]--Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I restored the above two votes which were deleted by Lincher in this edit. It is for the closing administrator to decide which votes should be discounted. Stifle 10:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision perhaps, but deletion is going too far (In my opinion). I actually found the page very usefull for a resent school essay. Honestly, I don't believe it should be deleted...keep 66.222.220.176 6:44, 6 December (GMT)

Note on the above:The vote above is anonymous and thus considered to be "in bad faith" according to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators--Jsone 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Close call, but if the POV problems can be addressed and the advocacy removed, this might be worth saving. Tag for cleanup with hard deadline and delete if the deadline is missed. On second thought, it is unlikely that it can be rewritten without the advocacy; therefore, delete. B.Wind 06:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above.Submitter.--Jsone 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if only becauae it should have been deleted the first time. I count 9 deletes and 3 legit keeps, 2 of them "weak keeps", and one of them contingent on it being a real movement (which it seems there is some doubt about). And to the anon above, Wikipedia is a good educational tool, but it's not really an ideal source for true research. Nor is any encyclopedia, really. -R. fiend 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV, original research, weird formatting, etc. The article is just a mess, with no hope of reaching NPOV status without massive pruning and then heavy oversight watching for anon editors trying to restore it. ^Blank ^Verse 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Oh wonderful! This again! I've put in LITERALLY YEARS of work into this page, and this is how I get repayed!? THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA! You people disgust me. If this is how the system works, then I have no interest in participating in such a scandal...I had hoped that factually ACCURATE information would have had its place here....I guess I was wrong. Do what you want, I give up. There, you must be thrilled.

P.S. I SAW THAT YOU REMOVED TWO KEEPS FOR THIS VOTE. "created accounts simply to vote?!?!?!?" You are SICK....I'm not even going to both to revert it. I have more pride than that. I certainly won't stoop to your level. Dont bother responding because I'm leaving for good.--Serbohellas

Delete, per R. fiend. Stifle 10:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- I find it somewhat suspicious that certain individuals are trying to delete this article for a second time and personally attribute these attempts to an ideological antipathy to the idea of a Greek-Serbian confederation rather than a genuine concern regarding whether or not the movement for some sort of Greek-Serb political union actually exists. However, that's another issue entirely and not one I have any inclination to raise so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

Concerning the issue of a Greek-Serbian movement towards political union, this is a historical event and, regardless of whether one opposes or agrees with it, for that reason alone it deserves a historical account. It is irrelevant to consider whether or not this is an "existing concept" or whether it currently has "any backing in either Greece or Serbia" (as one individual argued). Rather, one should consider if an effort to advance a Greek-Serbian confederation ever existed. After all, this entry exists to detail and chronicle the history of a Serbian-Greek Confederation rather than act as a dossier of current Greek-Serbian political organizations that espouse the idea. (In any case, that is my understanding.)

In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to prove that there have been attempts to advance some sort of Greek-Serbian political union. The fact that the president of Yugoslavia called for such a confederation in 1992 (an event that received news coverage around the world) speaks for itself. Although one individual implies that the state entity (i.e. Yugoslavia) that proposed this does not exist anymore, the fact of the matter is that by 1992 Yugoslavia had long since become a Serbian-dominated state. Moreover, by 1992 the non-Serbian republics of Yugoslavia had all declared independence from the country. The fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia officially changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003 doesn't mean that the former was not Serbian in its later years; if anything, it only strengthens this view. Also, the fact that the Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Republic of Srpska, also supported this idea in 1994 is further evidence that support for a Greek-Serbian confederation existed in the '90s. Although one individual argues that Milosevic and Karadzic were "radicals", I don't understand what this has to do with anything (even if we accept this premise as true). The political philosophies of some of the proponents of the Greek-Serbian confederation don't diminish the historical reality of the movement in any way. (However, for historical purposes, they should be noted.)

Aside from Serbian officials supporting a confederation with Greece, it should also be noted that Slav-Macedonian intellectuals and politicians also supported a confederation. In 2001, "Eleftherotypia" (a well-known Left-wing Greek newspaper) covered the issue of Slav-Macedonian support for a confederation. For example, former president Gligorov is quoted as saying, "This [idea] begun when Yugoslavia was beginning to fall apart, when intellectuals and politicians gathered in order to examine the perspectives that we had for our country. Our common position was that a confederation with Greece was the best solution". And Ante Popovski, regarded as the greatest novelist of his country, stated that he was "supporting the idea of a confederation with Greece" in an interview in the French newspaper "Liberasion" in 2001.

All of this said, I agree that the Serbian-Greek Confederation article does need revision. All of the "Neobyzantine" content should be removed as this has nothing to do with the historical chronicle of the movement for confederation. Once this is done, the issue of advocacy should be moot (at least for the most part). Any residual advocacy should be removed during a revision of the article. There should also be a greater effort to detail various historical aspects of movement of the Serbian-Greek confederation and less coverage regarding contemporary views of the proposed confederation. Finally, the article should be re-directed to "Serbian-Greek Confederation" instead of "Serbian-Greek Empire". Critias 11:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (User's first edit NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 11:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep -- It should be noted that this account was only created so that this vote wouldn't be regarded as being "in bad faith". Normally I have contributed to the article as user 66.222.199.62.

The user Jsone has given his reasons for the second deletion of this article, and I hope to contest them. He was noted as saying: "Quotes from people universally considered as radicals, without any references at all as to their veracity." The fact that they were radicals in no way makes the suggestion that they were also liars. There are actual news sources (found in External Links) that verify what they stated as being true. I have little trouble finding more sites that plainly prove this; however, the information provided is nowhere as detailed as that which was presented in the links provided.

He then said: "An internet poll (inherently unreliable)without any relevant data(source,oraganiser,polled population,duration,methodology).This poll could have easily be created by everyone with basic knowledge of MSpaint".

First of all this couldn't be further from the truth. There is a link to the poll in question that can be found at:http://members2.boardhost.com/serbia-hellas/msg/2126.top (which was included in the "links section"). A quick visit to the site automatically takes cares of source (obviously the site), organizer (the administrator), and methodology(which could have been acquired by plain use of logic). In regards to population, the article specifically states " The poll targeted 316 people (as of October 29, 2005), who were generally of Serbian and Greek descent". This can be backed up by an analysis of the site traffic. As to it being "inherently unreliable", it is CLEARLY stated that the results may be in subject to error. The poll only existed to give a general outlook as to the opinion of the subject at hand.

"References to the Neobyzantine movement, which actually contradict the concept of a union between the two states."

This is not true, considering that a Orthodox Union would in fact encourage the confederation between these nations. Where it does diverge from the original topic is that such a union would go beyond this and unite even more nations, that is why I also believe that it has no place here. If there are people who feel really strongly about it then perhaps it should have its own page. As of currently, I see no reason for this to be done.

"Links to pages "in support of the union" which are nothing but mostly empty personal sites (site #1),news repositories (site #2), and an 8 thread forum where people argue about whether the opposing poster is gay or not.(site #3)."

If news repositories cannot be considered as factually accurate sources then what can? Had this poster been more careful, he would certainly have noticed that this source was stored as an "External Link", and not, as he claims, a site in support of this union. As all proper news sources it held an unbiased POV that can be verified by a simple visit to the page in question.

The other websites(which Jsone oh so colourfully described) were placed in the section "Pro-Union" websites simply because of the fact that they WERE such!

I will now talk about why and how the article should be revised. Firstly all reference to the “neobyzantine” should be removed. I have somewhat already explained why I think so and don't see that any further explanation is neccessary. In addition, I ALSO believe that the article should be redirected to a more fitting title. Citias chose the designation "Serbian Greek Confederation", which I for one find highly suitable. More background information should also be included. So in conclusion, unrelated information should be removed, and already existing facts should be expanded upon. To be honest, I thought all of these revisions were necessary even back when I wrote what I did, however, I had assumed that it was already discussed and approved by the general community. I would certainly be willing to clean it up and expand on the main points. Dumanov 6:47 AM, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note on the above This is the user's first and only (meaningful, meaning outside his homepage) edit in Wikipedia.[[3]]Furthermore, I would like to comment that the "news repository" i was referring to was this link [4], that contains a number of articles on how greece and serbia have been friendly towards each other in history(frienship does not equal willing to unite)The other two articles presented in "external links" only refer to the two statements by Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, which I have adressed in the nomination. --Jsone 13:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the above I believe that I made myself very clear in stating "It should be noted that this account was only created so that this vote wouldn't be regarded as being "in bad faith". Normally I have contributed to the article as user 66.222.199.62. " So you can see that it was NOT my first edit, merely my first edit by use of THIS title (Dumanov). Secondly, while I do apoligies for assuming that the articles user Jsone had in mind were the following:

(Which BY THEMSELVES prove that THIS IDEA has existed for, at the very least, the past decade.), I do wish to put to question his justification in claiming that the link in question does not promote unity between the nations. If one actually bothers to open the link, one will notice the :SERBIAN GREEK BROTHERHOOD TITLE, and perhaps if thats not enough, the following quote: "Promoting Greek-Serb friendship, brotherhood, and unity". If you should STILL find that to be ambigous in meaning, then a quick view of the gallery, which contains the exact same map of a joint Serbia and Greece as this featured article does, should be enough to put this issue to rest.Once again, The section that this link belonged to was titled Pro-Union Sites because of the fact that it is one. Dumanov 3:20 AM 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this exists as political concept and should be kept as article. --CrniBombarder!!! | [[User talk:CrniBombarder!!!|†]] 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.