Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda

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 no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda

Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page mentions two regions that do not exist in the Geography of Albania, but they do exist in the minds of the macedo-bulgarian nationalists. These maps are invented by dubious wikipedians and include

• Comment. While I do agree with some of the reasons outlined in your comment (like the fact that the territories are not linked geographically; the modest numbers of the minority populations etc.), I have to suggest toning your words a bit. Making threats to answer this article with another one is far from any reasonable behaviour around here. If you do not like the content of an article, you do not threaten to create the opposite now. It just should not happen. --Laveol ^T 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not a threat and I'm truly sorry if you take it as such. I am referring to the risk that the Albanians start writing similar articles for their inhabited territories in Macedonia with some similarly invented maps. They will feel entitled to to it, because if 5k macedo-bulgarians live in Albania more than 500k albanians live in Macedonia. If the article is similar to this, i.e. including cities that have almost no minorities such as Korca and Pogradec, the mirror article will include half of Macedonia with a made up map that will be worse than this. And it will be done with the justification of the par condicio. Many administrators will have to agree with it because the arguments will be strong. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it's just the map that's bothering you, why not just remove the map? One map/one sentence/one paragraph can be removed, instead of deleting the article, if there are no problems with the remaining material in the article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIt's not only the map: that would be a reason for a split if the maps were accurate, which they aren't. The regions are including areas that are inhabited by Albanians and have no macedonians whatsoever. Those areas include a total population of $200k (Korca is 70k, Pogradec is 25k) the rest is around 100k and only 5k out of that 200k are macedonians. And many of the places listed don't have a Macedonian population but are Vlach. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we forget that these small regions are separated because they, geographically, belong to the historical region of Macedonia? And also, the region has a good number of Slavic (Macedonian) speakers. We will see how much Macedonians are in Albania after the change of the census policy, do not fight about it. I would keep the article, for the well known historical and linguo-ethnological reasons. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: If the reason for deleting is that these are two small regions, we can split the article into two and the problem is solved. Just we need to put tag for splitting--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what historical region of Macedonia you are talking about. Could you please be more specific as to the time of that region?Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (region) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole article Macedonia (region) is based on the Greater Macedonia map ( File:Greater_Macedonia.png) that is not a historical map, did not exist at any point of time, but comes only from a file created by a Wikipedia user (in this case Wiki-vr. I also can create a map call it Greater Albania include half of Europe and build an article saying that there are some minorities other than Albanian. As a matter of fact that map is also to be deleted because it describes a region that makes no sense. It is just confusing and is staying there because both greeks and macedon editors want to make this Macedonia "Region" as big as possible so that both of your dreams of grandeur are bigger as well. If you check the other maps that are historical, both from antiquity and middle ages Macedonia is in completely different places that the Greater Macedonia map. So if you are claiming that Prespa and Golloborda are part of the Greater Macedonia map which was built by a Wikipedia user, you are just confirming my words that the whole Macedonia (region) is a phony invention and such is Prespa and Golloborda article. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sulmues, that perception of Macedonia (region) is dates back to the 19th century (see this map from 1885 for example). I admit, it is inherently aribtrary and random though, since no state, or any other historical entity for that matter, has ever existed with those borders. Nevertheless, that map does depict "Macedonia" as understood by Balkan Slav peoples; Albanians and Greeks understand Macedonia in a different way.--Ptolion (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that should definitely be changed in this article are 1) make clear that this "region" is just how Bulgarians/Macedonians have traditionally understood the area, and 2) change that obviously POV passage according to which the area is "primarily populated by Macedonians and Albanians but also by a small number of Aromanians..." which seems to be an attempt to give the impression that the 5,000 Macedonians are the majority in the region. Also, I don't think that the list of settlements is necessary since the article should be about the irredentist concept rather than pure geography.--Ptolion (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are saying it is a map created by the Macedonian nationalists. The article should be deleted or linked to

Shkoder). And those WERE historical regions within the Ottoman Empire, so the maps ARE historical, contrary to the nationalist macedon map brought here: such map is based on XIXth century slavic dreams.Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"Albanian vilayets", LOL :) To be fair, Bulgarians/Macedonians claim that their idea of Macedonia is based on the boundaries of the Ottoman Uskub (Skopje), Manastir (Bitola) and Selanik (Thessaloniki) vilayets. Same old rubbish.--Ptolion (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you. Only that Manastir and Uskub were never in Christian hands until 1912. But it's irrelevant. That's why these maps should be in the nationalistic sites Greater Albania and United Macedonia, and that's it. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - The article is sourced and is also often referred to by this name by various Macedonian nationalists: [2], [3]. The article also provides information about the settlements with a Slavic minority in Albania, which is also sourced. I agree that the irredentist usage of the term must be made clearer, but this is no reason for deletion. Kostja (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that, if the article is to be kept, the list of settlements should be removed. This article is about the irredentist term, not geography, and there is no source that there is significant Slavic presence in all those settlements.--Ptolion (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The map at the bottom describes those settlements as having a Slavic population. Kostja (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that map isn't actually supported by its sources, therefore there is indeed no reference for these settlements. In this case they should be removed along with the map. Kostja (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable irredentist term, what the article contains as being debated above is not a reason to delete - it should contain what can be referenced, just like any other article.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (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.