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 Speedy Keep - nominator now votes keep, everyone else votes keep Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

It appears that Red Croatia fails notability, giving a total of around 170 Google search results, when excluding Wiki-references. A large number of the search results are Forums and simple meaningful mentions, some of them like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Croatia 2 this], where some yell "Heil Hitler" and salutes to the Ustašas. But the greatest issue does not lie there. It lies in the fact that Red Croatia is a geographical term used for three southern Dalmatian Slavic early medieval principalities (and we have an article for each and every one of them): Doclea, Travunia and Zachlumia - and there is nothing that should be in this article, and not in those three. A great part of the article (referring to the nationalist irredenta bit) is from/should be in the Greater Croatia article - which is the boil of controversy. Problem is that the "Red Croatia ideology" is just one of the numerous theories that exist for the soil, and not official historiography. In the end, the current article is as large as it will get, because there isn't much to speak about the term except: 1.Where the term is mentioned 2.What territories the geographical term accounts for ans 3.Where is this term repeated - all of which are already in the article. My suggestion is to merge it, preferably to the Duklja article, which by the way, already contains a mention of the term. --PaxEquilibrium 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per iruka & CrnaGora. My original idea was to merge the whole article to Duklja, but I won't do it now when there's a separate article. --PaxEquilibrium 11:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for 2 reasons. 1) procedural: there no notice on the article suggesting it's up for deletion -- perhaps the stealth is part of the deletion agenda?? 2) substantive: there is/was a Red Croatia, it is well documented in the article, which is well-referenced as these things go, and is admitted by the nominator. The fact that the nominator believes a great part of the article (mostly dealing with modern (mis)uses of the term) belongs elsewhere doesn't provide grounds for deleting the historically valid parts. If you believe things ought to be moved: be bold and move them, don't delete the parts we all think ought to remain. Carlossuarez46 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Also, because it does exist as a political concept. --Crna Gora 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst Red Croatia encompasses the territory of the three Southern duchies, it seems to be a distinct geographical reference separate from the three individual duchies & thus deserves it's own article. Also, the article is well referenced. iruka 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, I have completed the steps of the AFD nomination as of now. The article has an AFD notice which points to this discussion and this discussion's internal links work. I am only completing the nomination for procedural purposes and have no opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no valid reason for deletion given, perhaps the nominators comments should be moved to the articles discussion page. —siroχo 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The article fulfils all of the primary notability criteria. This vote was brought up for the wrong reasons, relating mostly to the nominator's editting history. --Thewanderer 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what is meant by that, but the nomination looks bona fide, and at this point we're all agreed. On that note let's just close this, hmm? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:55, 25 January 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.