Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yugoslavia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Yugoslavia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Yugoslavia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Yugoslavia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yugoslavia/archive

Scan for Yugoslavia related AfDs Scan for Yugoslavia related Prods Scan for Yugoslavia related TfDs

Bajgora offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined G3. This appears to be original research. I can't find a mention of a "Bajgora offensive" anywhere. The author of this article claims that two of the sources mention a "Bajgora offensive", but I can't find those mentions via translation, and certainly not an offensive that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Ćorlomanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted by WP:PROD and recreated. I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF here -- there are two moderately highly cited items in the Google Scholar profile, but they appear to be combining separate articles or items. I am noting that the prod message ("This person is a crackpot pseudoscientist who is abusing Wikipedia in multiple languages to simulate credibility. I have detailed my objections to the Serbian wiki page of this man here sr:Википедија:Трг/Архива/") expressed concerns about possible deceptive patterns, and the Google Scholar profile seems to be evincing this. I am skeptical of GNG notability, although it is plausible. I am concerned about unsourced and unlikely puffery in the article such as "It seems that he was the first who introduced terms such as quantum information and quantum-information technology to physics," although if he is notable then of course this can be cleaned up. Bringing to the community's attention for a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No pass of WP:PROF. Clicking on the asterisk on the cited items in the Google Scholar profile shows that they are actually unrelated publications by other people. Actually searching Google Scholar finds nothing under either the Roman or Cyrillic versions of his name. The claim to have invented quantum information is blatantly false (it was in use in the 1960s by Ingarden and Stratonovich, long before the subject was born). This work appears cranky enough that, per WP:FRINGE and WP:N, we need mainstream sources evaluating it and we have none. Spot-checking the ref-bombed article found no sources that would even pass WP:GNG let alone passing this stricter neutrality requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, China, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I say again that I have inserted new sources and that this should not be ignored. The sources that are important are the report by the Chinese Times and RTS (Radio Television of Serbia), which was officially published with international credibility. Then the reference that leads to the archive of Dubna University in Russia (Dubna is a university center and the largest institute for atomic and nuclear physics in the world) and Google Scholar. If Google Scholar is not an authoritative source either, because sources are inserted manually and did not exist until a few years ago, Dubna is without a doubt an institute where few scientists can appear just like that. Then there is the report by the Chinese Times from 2017, where Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović appears at an international conference in Beijing, and the picture in the newspaper shows that he is on a board with scientists Dr. Irena Ćosić from Australia, Dr. Ljuba Ristovski from Serbia and Dr. Boris Petrović from Brazil. In addition, I think I also see Dr. White from New Zealand. These are all scientists who have their own works and international cooperation. Then there is the RTS report from September 25, 2019, where at a conference on famous and deserving Serbs in the world, academician Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović was presented as one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. The conference was organized by the Association of American Serbs. These things cannot be faked. The thing is that most of the referenced articles actually came from the source of Portal 013 from 2018, which was officially the newspaper of the South Banat District, one of the 7 districts in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in the Republic of Serbia. That newspaper had an interview with Dr. Miloš Ćorlomanović when he transferred his work to the Institute of General and Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Belgrade. The thing is that the article about Dr. Miloš Čorlomanović was here for 7 years and was removed after so long without any valid reasons. If the biography criteria have changed, I can understand that, but not that an article that is referenced better than articles about some other scientists is deleted just like that. For example, the article about the Serbian-British scientist physicist Dr. Vlatko Vedral is referenced only by his biography from his personal website, so only a personal page. There are many such examples. As for the Serbian Wikipedia, that article was deleted for political reasons and someone's personal vandalism, without paying attention to the sources I sent them, and then a bot was put in place to prevent the article from being posted at all, where literally after a couple of minutes it puts a page for deletion. If the criteria for living individuals have changed, I can be told about it via messages and given time to obtain additional sources, but I must be told what and specifically. I know the person in question personally and he is my fellow citizen and I can do an interview with him if necessary. It is also possible to do an interview in his laboratory at the institute at the University of Belgrade. The thing is that he is a military scientist in China and cannot always publish everything. As for the story about the inaccuracy of so-called quantum information, which someone is referring to here, it is not about qubits from the field of computer science and computing, but about the quantification of some physical quantity, as the person in question once explained it to me. Similar to quantum space and quantum time. But if you think that is not correct, you are free to delete it, as well as everything else that you consider to be incomplete. Crnizmaj (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above screed my advice to delete this much-declined BLP is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - all of the sources appear to be unreliable, including four citations of Wikimedia Commons, a link to Google Search, and a Serbian search engine that shows zero results for "Miloš Ćorlomanović". --Iiii I I I (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above. Many of the sources are irrelevant or don't exist, and his h-factor is 2. Not close to WP:NPROF, with highly dubious claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically, I don't understand those factors. My observation was related to articles about other scientists, where I do not notice significantly different sources, on the contrary, they are often just personal biographies, mostly on personal websites. I even explained in detail the origin of the source, i.e. that the official local newspaper conducted an interview with the person in question and that other newspapers reported, then there is the Chinese Times, references of some works on Google Scholar and to the library of the University of Dubna, as well as some visits to institutions in Serbia. This certainly proves that it is a real person and that it is nothing imaginary. The only knowledge I have about the person in question, which is not related to the larger story, is that the person in question is a military scientist in China, which quite possibly accounts for the non-standard sources about him, so that creates confusion. However, it cannot be disputed that the Association of American Serbs, at the conference on famous Serbs held in Chicago on September 25, 2019, declared him one of the 20 most deserving Serbs in the field of natural sciences. You have attached a link about it. It's true that his profile doesn't exist on Serbian Wikipedia, but that doesn't prove anything, because there someone anonymous ignored the sources in the midst of vandalism. His profile has existed on the Dutch Wikipedia for many years. Crnizmaj (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max & Intro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. scope_creep^Talk 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Gruber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG, no sources beyond profiles and stats from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NOTSTATS Fails WP:NSPORTS. The notability criteria is more than a pseudo biography and not a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This guy played for fair sized clubs including Lech Poznań and a lot of football at that, he played at the top of his game and played European games. Playing football is not a NOTSTATS issue. I don't know how much media coverage he had in the countries he played for at the time, but I am betting on newspapers here. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Yes there does seem to be coverage issue, but the internet at this time, is not at the same level on the region, it was still being built up in Serbia at that time. It doesn't help the fact he played during a time of strong geo-political issues in the region. So that might negate searches. I am going to assume good faith here for my weak keep. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @Govvy Боки 💬 📝 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Even though he played in smaller centers, he had spells at important clubs in those places, didn't he really find any WP:SIGCOV? Svartner (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD Patrol. While there is no clear consensus, the evident lack of SIGCOV is a strong policy-compliant argument. Spartathenian (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Yugoslavia related pages including deletion discussions