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

The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn, unanimous keep so far) - Nabla 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another redundant Yugoslavia article, containing information that either can already be found elsewhere or simply belongs elsewhere. The history of Yugoslavia is confusing enough as it is, we don't need to make more splinter articles and forks! K. Lásztocska 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my nom and per precedent of Borders before and after Yugoslavia.
• Comment for those of us unfamiliar with where it should belong or where it can be found, can you elaborate on it? Your post above makes it sound as if there is a lot of history to this type of article that not everybody is familiar with.Balloonman 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to comment: Sorry, got a little too stuck in the East-Central European Wikiworld. Yugoslavia is an obvious place for a lot of it, since most of that article is history-related anyway. Other possibilities: Austro-Hungary, State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, [{Serbia]], Croatia, and obviously History of Yugoslavia, articles about the aftermath of World War 1, etc. I'm just trying to avoid massive "Balkanization" of articles related to, well, the Balkans. :) K. Lásztocska 04:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move most material from Yugoslavia#Background and Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Formation to Creation of Yugoslavia. It's currently a poor article and is forkish but with the additional info could serve a useful purpose to pare details of the formation from the rather long aforementioned overview articles.—  AjaxSmack  04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and any other article concerning Yugoslavia's historic background into History of Yugoslavia then convert it into a redirect. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have noticed "History of Yugoslavia" is a redirect to what is roughly a very large disambiguation article (Yugoslavia). All the more reason to assemble the content at a unique location. —  AjaxSmack  07:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Too large to merge into History of Yugoslavia or Yugoslavia; this is about the post-WWI politics that led to grouping several different ethnic groups into an artifically creaed nation. A comparable problem would be in attempting to merge Articles of Confederation into an article about the history of the United States. Mandsford 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: keeping such poor quality text may discourage people from fixing the article. With de-facto informal stamp of approval a rewrite would require more boldness and give less satisfaction than creation of new text. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So the answer is to simply delete the old text? I disagree. If the problem is that the English is not the author's first language, I think most Wikipedians welcome the opportunity to assist in fixing grammar, syntax, etc. From my point of view, the person who can write in his own language and in English is more bilingual than I am. Even at that, I don't think it needs a rewrite so much as some rewording. Mandsford 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the problems seem to be language quality and content forking, I have made copy and organizational edits and moved material from Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Please take into consideration with regards to this AfD. —  AjaxSmack  10:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ok, wow, that's a LOT better. I was thinking about this whole thing yesterday and realized that this article isn't really the problem, it's the fact that the Yugoslavia article itself is too big and not enough of a summary--all these other articles then end up looking like forks and splinters when they should be elaborations. So I hereby change my vote here to Keep. *looks sheepish*. K. Lásztocska 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is not other article which speak about that. I am OK with new version of article but my only comment is about part with name Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia. Version before that have been more clear of anarchy in State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which has been important element in final decision about union. Rjecina 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Informative and well referenced.--Southern Texas 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, nominating this for deletion was obviously a bad idea! Can an admin please close this "debate"!? K. Lásztocska 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: if the article was once defective, it now is certainly not. Peterkingiron 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was defective when I nominated it, now it isn't, and now I look stupid for having nominated it at all. :) Can somebody please close this AfD?? K. Lásztocska 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy -- it was a legit nomination of a weak article before. And now it is the site of intense national sparring so maybe it would've been better off deleted. —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 14 August 2007 (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.