Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makedonsko Devoiche

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep, without prejudice to referring back to AfD at a later point. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonsko Devoiche[edit]

Makedonsko Devoiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable songs from the region of Macedonia. 95% of the article volumes are the lyrics. There have been endless disputes if the songs originate from Bulgaria or the Republic of Macedonia. I am also nominating the following pages:

ForeignerFromTheEast 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - expanding the articles will help avoiding deletion. Is keeping them for some period of time in which one of he sides interested expands it, a solution? --Laveol T 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I tried to help (well, moderately) to the improvement of the Makedonsko Devoiche but my additions were rejected by one of the editors above. Maybe that source I brought was not perfect [1] (in Macedonian), but it was like "better something than nothing", at least until a better one is found. On the other hand, the other side in this dispute havent provided any source to advocate their version. Now when they lack any counter-argument, suddenly ForeignerFromTheEast insists on deletion. I fail to see why Dzole
  • Delete - Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Subdolous 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - How come the article was online all this time without being nominated for deletion, but the whole thing started right after I disputed the Bulgarian POV version of the story? Why it wasnt nominated for deletion when it included a Bulgarian POV?Dzole 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:N. Move to Macedonian WP. MISSINGNO. was here. 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Keep and move I suggest moving to Wikisource. MISSINGNO. was here. 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - From what I can see ForeignerFromTheEast is nominating a number of songs from the Balkans for deletion. What concerns me is that all of these songs are exclusively from Macedonia and from what I can see this is the only reason why they are nominated. It would only be fair to delete all songs from the Balkan region. It is not fair to delete songs due to their cultural heritage. Ireland101 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please discuss the notability of the article in question and not the motives of the nominator. Corvus cornix 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason that I posted what I did was because I do not understand why they are nominated for deletion. There are many other songs from the Balkans of the same type of this one such as:Leventikos, Makedonia, Makedonikos antikristos, Sadi Moma and others. The reason that the songs in question should not be deleted is because there is no reason to do so. These songs are extreamly popular threwout the Balkans and choosing to exclusively delete songs due to there cultural heritage seems a little extreme to me. Ireland101 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has a historical backing and is a very popular song threwout the Balkans. As there is no reason to delete it I suggest we keep it.Ireland101 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason the delete.Ireland101 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of verifiability violates Wikipedia policy. Corvus cornix 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the external links section [[2]] it does not violate verifiability Ireland101 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1-That is not a reliable source. 2-There is nothing on that page which validates anything other than the song's existence, there is nothing there about its notability. Corvus cornix 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a reliable source as it is an archive of all types of ethnic music. Please provide the link where you found out that it is not reliable. If this [[3]] is not enough for you think that it is notable I do not know what will do the trick. Ireland101 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read WP:RS? Where is the proof that this site is fact-checked and is created by people with accepted credentials? In addition, the only thing on that page is the song's lyrics. There is absolutely nothing there that you can write an article about. Wikipedia is not a collection of song lyrics. And don't give me google hits, give me reliable sources. You have provided none. Until you provide reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS, I have nothing further to say on this matter. Corvus cornix 23:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of songs notability from reliable sources
  1. The BBC page may be a partial source, but it's barely more than a tangential mention.
  2. Lyrics pages are not reliable sources.
  3. Lyrics pages are not reliable sources.
  4. Tangential mention.
  5. The fact that a performer performed the source is a so what?
  6. Tangential mention. Corvus cornix 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-visit my links as you have not analyzed them correctly. For example sheet music is not lyrics and the Soros foundation is a page devoted to the song unlike what you stated. You should try to portray sites accurately as adding purposeful incorrect descriptions tends to indicate a bias towards the subject. Ireland101 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clearly state what you want. I have fulfilled all of Wikipedia's requirements what more are you looking for? Also please notice how fellow unrelated editors are agreeing that this is not how you portray it. Ireland101 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Keep No sources, fails WP:N Chris! ct 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Well, it is sourced now. Need cleanup though. Chris! ct 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please rethink your decision considering the sources provided above. Ireland101 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain which of the links provided are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think the link from BBC is good. The others are not reliable sources. That is why I say weak keep. Chris! ct 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I don't think that Wikipedia allows for unrelated articles to be added to one deletion, as is the current case with the articles
If anyone could provide any incite it would be helpfull. Ireland101 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After doing some research and viewing the WP:DP it is clear that deletion requests must be for a single article.Ireland101 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you keep trying to throw in peripheral arguments? Stick to the subject. There are no sources. Instead of repeatedly arguing that there are and not doing anything about it, find some sources. The fact that you have been unable to do so merely proves that there are none. Corvus cornix 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What peripheral arguments? I was not directing any comment to yourself so that you would have to argue it. I was simply asking for advice about violations of article deletion protocol. Ireland101 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus, the rationale for the nomination was "non-notable songs..." and I'm asserting that's an Anglo-centric (possibly racist) view which misses the real notability of these songs. If sources are the problem then let's look at providing good quality sources, not deleting the articles. If any of these articles is to be deleted I would like them to be dealt with individually too. I'll be very disappointed if some trigger-happy admin decides to just delete these 5 articles without assessing notability on a case by case basis. Donama 05:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corvus cornix perhaps it is time to take a break. It is obvious you are the only one pushing these views and that other editors see this is a different way then yourself. Perhaps you need to look at the other the other side of the story and not be so one sided. It also seems a bit strange the way you are so determined to have your way.Ireland101 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Corvus Cornix. Fails WP:N. Edison 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no reliable sources found so far, as per the comments above of User:Corvus cornix - fchd 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - After a request on my talk page from User:Ireland101 to review in light of the BBC and Soros Foundation sources, my opinion of Delete still stands. - fchd 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I am the original creator of all these articles. These are some of the most popular folk songs in the Republic of Macedonia, and also the neighboring countries. If that doesn't count as notability, I guess 'Waltzing Matilda' should be deleted as well. As for sources, these songs are common knowledge in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and other countries, and part of the everyday life and customs. I am sure that they have been researched a great deal by folklorists and have lots written about them, but I have neither the time nor the motivation to research that, which of course, doesn't mean that someone else will not do that in the future. I see no harm in the articles staying in wikipedia as stubs until somebody spends more time and develops them into scholarly pieces. Deleting relevant articles is not a way to built an encyclopedia. Capricornis 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not see what I posted above I will re post it.

What kind of sources are you looking for? It is clear that it was of national significance that it was played and featured on the US government website. The International Soros Foundation has a page dedicated to its cultural significance. The BBC has noted it cultural significance. It is notable enough that sheet music is printed and distributed world wide. And if that was not enough, famous non-Macedonian, non-Balkan musicians have played it and added it to their shows. As it is apparent that all of Wikipedia's requirements are met what more are you looking for? Ireland101 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times do I have to repeat myself? I already explained why only the BBC source is actually a reliable source. And I have already explained that the sources must help you to write an article from. What information could be gleaned from those sites which could be used to write an article about this song? Corvus cornix 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per Corvus cornix. None of those sources are any good. Furthermore, the articles don't even claim notability and consist instead of mainly lyrics; WP:NOT a lyrics database. If these traditional folk songs are important, I'm sure someone would have written about them; see Frog Went A-Courting for what we could expect an article about a notable folk song to look like. Mangojuicetalk 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Frog Went A-Courting is a model article of how all folk song articles should look like. It is also my hope that eventually Makedonsko Devoiche can mirror Frog Went A-Courting. I think the answer for why the article in question does not look like Frog Went A-Courting can be found on the history pages for both articles. Firstly Frog Went A-Courting is several years old, Makedonsko devoiche has only existed for a couple of months. The second and more significant difference is that several users have made it their mission to revert the article as much as they can. This is evident as these users have deleted more then they have added. Choosing to delete this article will do nothing positive. What we have to do is work on it and make it an article that will exhibit the multiculturalism and spirit of Wikipedia. Ireland101 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Ireland101 and Donama. Lack of sources listed is no measure of notability (especially web sources). And I doubt that wikipedians from California can measure notability about balkan-related subject accurately. In fact, only people from that region or background should comment on it. -- P199 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specious argument not worth responding to. Corvus cornix 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:N and Corvus Cornix's analysis of the sources providing during this AfD. Mostly not WP:RS and the BBC link is really a stretch for notability. Doctorfluffy 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. Hi All, I really don't see why these articles should be deleted. They are culturally significant songs from the region (apparently -- I am not Macedonian/Bulgarian, so I am going to take everyone's word for it), and there are sources for the information in the article. I agree with ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs) that the article should be more than 5% content, but surely this is an argument for the article to be flagged as a stub, rather than for deletion of the content. Why not leave the articles and flag them so that Macedonian/Bulgarian/interested users can add content and background on the songs? Cheers, AWN AWN2 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a lyric guide. Pilotbob 04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that Wikipedia is not a lyric guide, but in the case of culturally significant songs like Waltzing Matilda, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, etc, a Wikipedia article is not out of place. I don't know if these songs are culturally significant though. A BBC article and a US Embassy reference would seem to indicate that they are. Cheers, AWN AWN2 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment/Summary I really don't think the case for deletion has been made. The article was nominated because the song was (i) "non-notable", (ii) lacked content, and (iii) caused dispute over the origin of the song. Corvus cornix also cited (iv) lack of sources in the article. (1) The debate here seems to indicate that the song is notable in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the Balkans generally. (2) I agree that the article lacks content, although this merely highlights why the article should be classified as a stub or added to a WikiProject and/or Noticeboard. Ireland101 provided some good examples of what the article could be expanded to (Leventikos, Makedonikos antikristos, Sadi Moma, other examples could be The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Waltzing Matilda). Capricornis also raised the suggestion that the articles should be kept, to give editors in the future the chance to properly reference the article and add content. (3) The dispute over whether the song is Macedonian or Bulgarian can either be resolved through proper sourcing (e.g. naming the author or first recorded performance), or by appropriate wording to the effect that Macedonians and Bulgarians both consider it to be a local folk song. (4) I agree with Corvus cornix that better sourcing for the article is required, but that implies that the article should be kept, and I think it is still not a good enough reason to the delete the article (stub tags may help resolve this issue, rather than deletion). Further, as Ireland101 points out, (5) multiple deletions cannot be suggested in this format. I think it all points to a keep. Cheers, AWN AWN2 08:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, vote is result of canvassing by User:Ireland101. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue as I did not ask anyone to vote.Ireland101 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Keep all, and name them Macedonian songs, since when are these bulgarian songs?? this is just unbelievable how big the propaganda on wikipedia is. I say, forbid the whole wikipedia website for brainwashing people who dont know better. Doesnt the name of the song, Makedonsko Devojce(Macedonian girl) says enough about where the song comes from? Don't be so stupid and do something right and logical. I and all Macedonians are raised with these songs,these songs exist for many many years as macedonian songs, and now some people who arent macedonian and dont have any clue about macedonia nor the macedonians are telling me (us) what these songs are?! ridiculous!Makedonia 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, vote is result of canvassing by User:Ireland101. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are untrue as I did not ask anyone to vote. Continuing to make inaccurate comments will result in a personal attack complaint. Please retract your statements ForeignerFromTheEast Ireland101 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not as you very selectively attracted the attention of people that will vote against deletion. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the canvassing debate is getting away from the main issue, and has the potential to get nasty. Even prior to the canvassing debate, it has been my opinion that this AfD should be judged on the merits of the arguments (i.e. has the criteria stated in the AfD been adequately dealt with, or has a suitable course of action been found), rather than the numbers of people voting. At the moment, by my crude count, the vote is roughly even, but I think of more importance is the fact that the nominator's concerns (and the issue of sources) have either been addressed, or can be addressed by properly flagging the article as requiring more content and sources. Adding the song to a Noticeboard or WikiProject (not necessarily only the Macedonian or Bulgarian WP -- perhaps also a Balkan, or Folk Music WP) will allow other users to add content. Deleting the article will not increase the knowledge, add to the quality of Wikipedia, or allow editors the chance to add content. Again, I think it all points the article being keeped. Cheers, AWN AWN2 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AWN2, we should not let unrelated arguments interfere with this issue. Besides the fact that the accusation of canvasing does not mean anything and cannot affect the AfD we should stick to the main issue. As I have stated before these articles have the full potential to reach the quality of the other articles that have existed for years. I think as a status quo has been reached in votes it is a good idea for the articles to be kept and an opportunity given to all Wikipedia members to add constructive changes to these articles and make them into something Wikipedia would be proud to display. It is important to remember that these articles have only existed for a couple of months and that may be the reason for the lack of content compared to the other articles which have existed for years. Ireland101 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ireland101's comments above are the most salient so far: this is a young article, and the best thing for it is to get attention from editors over time (this point was also made early on by Laveol and Capricornis). Take a look at the early versions of The Battle Hymn of the Republic -- it was a pretty inauspicious start too! I think we should close this AfD, apply the proper flags to the article(s), and move on. I, for one, have a few ideas for the article, but don't want to start editing while the debate is ongoing. ForeignerFromTheEast, can we take on board the suggestions from you and Corvus cornix, and close the AfD? Cheers, AWN AWN2 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource articles are a bit different. This article is more similar to The Battle Hymn of the Republic and Waltzing Matilda Ireland101 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, they aren't, since those articles discuss the history of the song and the lyrics, and have reliable sources, something these articles ... lack. Corvus cornix 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for now at least! Cheers, AWN AWN2 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one answered my valid question: How come the article wasnt nominated for deletion before? This whole thing started when I contested the Bulgarian POV in it. You have the history and all, check it. Before that, the Bulgarian editors not only that didnt have problem with the article's existence of Wikipedia, but they didnt forget to add "Bulgarian song" to it, like they do to every Macedonian song article. After I contested, ForeignerFromTheEast lacking any valid counter-arguments suddenly decided to nominate it for deletion (to mop it under the carpet). Corvus cornix, you ask for souces, how come the Bulgarian POV in this and other articles was tolerated without any source? Dzole 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're never going to answer you. Anything that the Bulgarians don't like on Wikipedia they will change to their liking unltil someone questions their motives at which point they will delete it. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dzole brings up a valid point. It seems this AfD was created because of disputes regarding the "ethnicity" of the article as far as I can see. It was a big coincidence the way ForeignerFromTheEast nominated the article for deletion right after he got into a dispute about it.Ireland101 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed already, everything is so obvious its shameful. But back to the subject: the song is not a traditional song but it has been composed by the famous Macedonian singer Jonče Hristovski based on the traditional macedonian folk music in 1964. Little by little the song became popular among the commong folks in the Balkans, and thus, its often mistaken for a traditional song. The copyrights for the song have been inherited by Jonče Hristovski's daughters after his death ("Vest" Daily Newspaper Issue: 502 3/11/2002, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia (in Macedonian)). These claims were denied by the Bulgarian editors, however as I already said they just reverted the article to the unsourced Bulgarian POV without providing any counter-argument. Strangely Corvix didnt react back then Dzole 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While these sources are disputed because they contain tangential mentions, it should be noted that none of them mention Bulgaria in any way. There are exactly ZERO sources suggesting the song is Bulgarian. All references to Bulgaria in the article should be removed because the idea that it is a Bulgarian song is based on the notion that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, not that it is popular in Bulgaria (which it probably isn't) or was written by a Bulgarian. The language dispute has nothing to do with this. Therefore, I must say keep. If anyone else has time to find reliable sources, great. And to the Bulgarian editors, give at least one source saying it is Bulgarian. Cant' find one? That's what I thought. Alex 202.10.89.28 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa people... let's get this AfD cleared up before editing the article!! This AfD was initiated based on 3 things, and I think we can demonstrate that these will be adequately dealt with (see my comments above). The issue of sources (raised by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs)) was raised after the AfD, and is (I believe) separate to it. However, the issue of sourcing is a valid one -- the arguments about valid, reputable sources should apply to the article, as they do to all Wikipedia articles. If anyone -- be they Macedonian, Bulgarian or Guatemalan -- can provide sourced information about the origin of the song, this should go into the article, or the article's Talk Page. The information provided by Dzole is a really good start, and should go on the Talk Page as a basis for proper sourcing of the article. Once ForeignerFromTheEast has removed the AfD the issues relating to the article can be discussed on the talk page until a resolution is reached. This AfD has been argued on the issues, let's keep it that way :-) Cheers, AWN AWN2 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid some of you fail to notice the real problem here. Its obviously not about any sources anymore, its about ForeignerFromTheEast's and Laveol's obvious tendention to push Bulgarian POV specificaly in Macedonian articles. Theres no Macedonian article that is not rewritten by them and this normally includes the Macedonian folk songs too. You have history versions and all to check it out just dont try to convince me that im wrong. Im just stating the obvious facts and I wrote Foreigner himself about his tendentious behaviour, beacause of which, all this started in the first place Dzole 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/procedure: I should have done this earlier, but I skimmed through the AfDs guidelines, and AfDs are not decided based on a vote (→ How to discuss an AfD), so I think now that the criteria of the AfD have been addressed, the AfD can be closed. I asked the AfD nominator (ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs)) whether he would agree to close the AfD with a keep at 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC), so let's allow a reasonable time to pass (let's say 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)?) so that ForeignerFromTheEast can respond, and then close the AfD and edit the article appropriately (i.e. neutral point of view, provide sources, civility, etiquette, and avoiding edit wars). Once the AfD is closed, the article should not be radically changed without sources, and please use the Talk Page before making changes which may be considered controversial. If you do make a controversial change, make sure it is properly sourced, otherwise it is likely to be justifiably reverted very quickly!! If the AfD is removed, I propose the following actions:[reply]
  1. Removal of AfD tag.
  2. Addition of Music of Bulgaria tag or removal of Music of the Republic of Macedonia tag (so that either both or neither box is displayed until the origin of the song is determined through sources). (The fact that Bulgarian language hits on Google are returned means that the song is at least known in Bulgaria.)
  3. Not labeling the song as exclusively Macedonian or Bulgarian until the origin or writer of the song can be reliably identified
  4. Discussion on Talk Page of origin controversy.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Cheers, AWN AWN2 08:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't work that way. I will continue to object until the sourcing issue is resolved, and that is my one and only objection. If you can find reliable soruces, I'll withdraw my objections, but so far, none have been forthcoming. Even if the original nominator withdraws his objection, that will not change my objections, and therefore the nomination must continue until an admin closes it. Properly. Corvus cornix 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Look people, please make up your mind which is the primary reason for deletion? Notability? As mentioned above, one can find numerous mentions of the songs: let's take Zajdi Zajdi for an example: here, here. The entire newspaper article (in macedonian); another one, speculating a copyvio in 300 (film). It has 99,100 nominal GHits in Cyrillic and 147,000 in Latin. Cover versions were perfomed by Toše Proeski ([16]), Mizar, Smak, Boki Milošević ([17]) and Ferus Mustafov ([18]). Is that enough to establish notability?
    Now, issue 2: lack of sourcing? AFD is not a cleanup. There are some online sources that should hold the water at least for a reasonable stub, and the songs are likely to be described in more detail in some printed ethnographic study, should anyone pay a visit to a library. Duja► 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not once have my objections about sourcing been about cleanup, but entirely about notability. Corvus cornix 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have stated what you are looking for please look at the links Duja has provided. These songs have been preformed by people like Ferus Mustafov, Leb i Sol and Tose Proeski. Tose Proeski was a pop star all around the Balkans and toured the world. The fact that these people recorded these songs should say something about the notability of the songs. As you have said that this is your only objection and that now the notability of the songs has been proven please withdraw your objections as you have stated. Ireland101 21:52, 5 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Makedonsko_Devoiche&oldid=1144097486"