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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Kingdom of Croatia

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Triune Kingdom of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was created by User:Ban kavalir after deleting a substantial portion of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and created the article, which is very biased and discusses a Croatian nationalist idea of the Triune Kingdom. Uncontroversial, sourced facts, such as that Croatia (Habsburg) "ended" in 1868 and became Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia has (previously) been changed to end in 1848 and the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia" has been pushed and presented as a "real" and recognized entity after 1848, despite it never being realized. The real situation should be restored (as I have done on the Croatia (Habsburg) page) and this page be deleted. The situation regarding the Triune Kingdom is already discussed (in its actual situation) here: Triune Kingdom. Even the Croatian page(s) show the Kingdom of Croatia to "end" in 1868 and the "claimed" Triune Kingdom of start in 1868. Havsjö (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1848-1867) is a different era and state entity then the ones before 1848 and the ones after 1867. This is due to this facts:

ect This era is different due to the explained reasons, the same and even fewer reasons are used for the period of the Triune Kingdom (Croatia-Slavonia) 1868-1918 to be in a separate article. Also in Croatian historiography as well as legal system it is regarded as a separate state era due to all the mentioned. Not to mention that the article has at least five times!!! more texts, sources and materials then it had in the previous article, which alone would be the reason to start a more detailed article on that period. PS no sources or text were deleted, they were all incorporated into the new article, but as mentioned the article has FIVE TIMES more texts, sources and materials on the subject of the era of 1848-1867 SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Croatian page (and the [old english version]) for the Habsubrg-controlled Croatia shows accurate flags and years, while also detailing information about the 1848 revolution and subsequent years until the settlement in 1868, when the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Slavonia, were merged into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. And even though the croatian wikipedia shows gives more prominence to the "Triune Kingdom" in the article for Croatia-Slavonia (than the english previously did), it neutrally explains the ideologically drive aspirations and claims surrounding the Triune Kingdom. It als does not claim it was already a thing since 1848(!) The very blatant push for the legitimacy of Triune Kingdom is very obvious.
Information for other people reading this about the Triune Kingdom can be read here and in many, many previous discussion in talk pages of many of the articles mentioned in this discussion. All of them detailing the nationalist and territorial aspirations and the idea of the "Triune Kingdom" in the late 19th century. Some more information and discussion on the situation that as been happening on these articles can be read on this talk page. This article is a total sham and its content should be restored or moved to a restored version of the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) --Havsjö (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think should be conserved? There's a couple of youtube videos, and lots of repeats from the same books whose ISBNs don't seem to exist in Google Books or Open Library. I'm not sure there's much baby here, if any. CMD (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rely on gbooks to establish the existence or otherwise of a book. I took the first book reference as an example. Sure enough, it's not on gbooks, but here it is on WorldCat, Open Library, Library of Congress, and Amazon. By my count, there are five book sources with cited ISBNs, all available in at least some catalogues: [1][2][3][4][5]. Further, there are even more other books and scholarly papers for which no index or link is given, making them slightly harder, but not difficult to track down. For instance, ref #11 is this book on WorldCat. In short, my general impression is that the references in this article are quite solid and the argument for retaining and resusing them is a valid one. SpinningSpark 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was officially called Triune Kingdom "internally" and had claims on Dalmatia, which was not part of it in reality, that articles discusses the "region" in Austria-Hungary. The article Triune Kingdom talks about the aspirations/history/idea behind the Kingdom and basically the reasons why Croatia-Slavonia called itself that and wanted Dalmatia, as well as the movements that sought to make it a reality during the birth of modern Croatia. So they dont really overlap. This article (which is tagged for deletion), however, is just bad history (or outright fake), even Croatian wikipedia explains the situation in a neutral and academic manner surrounding the Triune Kingdom and Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918). This article talks about a "Triune Kingdom" even since from 1848, and presents it as a very independent/sovereign Kingdom all the way until Croatia-Slavonia in 1868, even skirting around (with no source) the years of Baron Alexander von Bach "Absolutism", during which Austria enforced a complete control, absolutist system over the empire during which Austria ruled everything very "totally" and Croatian national symbols were even banned. This article neglects this (and has removed it from Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#19th_century after that period was moved to here, although it has since been restored), which details it in much more neutral and clear light, without being obfuscated in this obvious push for the Triune Kingdom idea. Even the Croatian wikipedia page of that era too, does not make such claims (like a Triune Kingdom from 1848) and has a very neutral and informative tone regarding that time, as the restored English version now does too. Ban Kavalir has also in the article for Triune Kingdom, used sources to support historical basis for the Triune Kingdom[6], while also neglecting to include that the very same source mentions how the term didnt really receive common usage until the nationalist push in the 19th century. He has also used sources from the 19th century written by people who are members of political parties whos explicit primary goal was "the recognition of the Triune Kingdom". An obvious agenda is behind this article, and I again suggest comparisons with both the (currently restored) English articles as well as the Croatian counterparts for a more netural view for the people who might be a bit confused about all these criss-crossing articles. I also suggest looking at the current talk page of User:Ban kavalir for another "show of character"... --Havsjö (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are responding to an argument I did not make (strawman). It seems to have entirely passed you by that I have already !voted delete. I was commenting on the potential value of the sources, not on the value of the article. You have dismissed the sources in what seems to me to be an extraordinarily offhand and inaccurate way. Even the Youtube videos may have some value – Youtube should not always be dismissed out of hand. This one is from KnajzTV; Robert Knjaz appears to be a well known Croatian broadcaster [7]. The video is from his Croatian Greats series, which is in the Discovery Channel catalogue. SpinningSpark 10:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was commenting/answering User:IamNotU's comment! I think too that some sources here could be well used (on the respective other article...), those are no need to be just ignored/thrown away--Havsjö (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. In that case you used too many indents to reply to IamNotU, but don't change it now. That will make my reply confusing. But I think IamNotU could make the same complaint; you were not responding to the point they were making. SpinningSpark 10:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I rewrote the opening of Triune Kingdom to more clearly describe it and to give it more separation as an article from the Croatia-Slavonia article. Hopefully it should be easier to understand now, without giving contradictory information etc --Havsjö (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Triune Kingdom still does not anywhere link to, or mention, Triune Kingdom of Croatia the distinction is still as clear as mud to me. Sorry, still looks like a POVFORK. SpinningSpark 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, between Triune Kingdom and Triune Kingdom of Croatia there is no distinction/separation at all. I meant between Triune Kingdom and Croatia-Slavonia, which were also mentioned by IamNotU before, hehe --Havsjö (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not relying on Gbooks to establish the existence of the sources, I had for example found the two I checked elsewhere. I was instead noting the difficulty of accessing them, and therefore an inability to assess how reliable they may be. I'm not minded to take a book's existence as proof it's a good source, and while some/all may be, I am even less willing to trust their use/interpretation on this page. CMD (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what you said. You strongly implied that their were few book sources (not true) and that the ISBNs could not be found in online indexes (also not true). It is not even true that they cannot be found in one you explicitly mention, Open Library. At best, your comments were misleading from lazy reviewing, and at worst, it is deliberate bad faith. We do not rule out sources because we cannot access them, and we assume good faith of other editors until shown otherwise. Do you have any verifiable objection to these sources? Can you show that any of them have been misrepresented in the article? If not, your comments are just worthless speculation. SpinningSpark 16:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 6 book sources with ISBNs, although I did miss the non-ISBNed ones. My note on lots of repeats referred to 1848 u Hrvatskoj by Jelena Boršak-Marijanović, used for a quarter of the citations on this article, which does not seem to be on Open Library. Perhaps you're right and I am jaded from too long in Balkan articles with regards to my faith in content forks created after edit warring elsewhere, but at any rate, I opened asking which sources should be conserved. Accepting the rest of my comment was given too blithely, that initial question is still needs an answer if the sources are going to be conserved. CMD (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2019 (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.
More