Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of Republika Srpska

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. —Cryptic 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regions of Republika Srpska

These regions apparently do not exist. Official website of the government of Republika Srpska makes no mention of them, and no one has ever heard of them, except the author of this website, given as the only reference. Nikola 07:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral (leaning to delete per WP:V). I had never heard of these Srpska regions before. Some websites appear to state their existence, but they're hardly verifiable (most of them are online encyclopedias also lacking verifiable sources, and some websites even link to WP's article for further information about the so-called regions).--Húsönd 16:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to keep per Bm gub.--Húsönd 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed back to Neutral per Dzordzm.--Húsönd 04:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep---perhaps they're slightly hard to find on the English internet because they share names with major cities. The UN seems to know all about them, for example [1] , [2], or [3] Bm gub 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral/cleanup per Dzordzm and Nikola.
  • I'm glad you found that information, but these are not regions of Republika Srpska. The reliefweb document mentions several regions: Banja Luka, Eastern Herzegovina, Prijedor, Zvornik and Doboj (Eastern Herzegovina is of course an informal geographical region). UNHCR's map shows regions of Banja Luka, Doboj, Bijeljina, Vlasenica, Sokolac, Srbinje and Trebinje - note that there is no Prijedor or Zvornik region. Note at the bottom explains it: Regions in RS are specified according to competence areas of Local Refugees Committees - so these are competence areas of local refugees committees, and not regions of Republika Srpska. Unece's document apparently speaks of regions used internally by RS institute of statistics. There is a map of RS showing regions at the website of the Institute of Statistics of Republika Srpska (bottom right), but again, these are regions internally used by the institute, and not regions of Republika Srpska. Nikola 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. Edward Wakelin 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Delete per Dzordzm.
• Strong delete - Nonsense, original research. I inquired about this many months ago and asked the person who first invented these regions in Wikipedia to supply his source. It turned out to be an amateur expat French-Bosnian site. The government in Republika Srpska is centralized and does not feature any administrative subdivisions. What UNHCR thinks about this is quite beside the point. (And oh yes, what French-Bosnian expats think about this is beside the point, too.) UNHCR simply organized their own local chapters in a way that best fits their operations. How is that freaking relevant for Wikipedia? I am sure that cattle growers in USA or milk producers in Germany subdivide the territory according to their measures yet that does not mean we should have an article "Regions of Germany" positing that "Germany consists of Alpenmilch and Friesisch regions" and let alone a map implying that these regions are some sort of equivalent to the German states (like the map of RS regions suggesting that they are some sort of equivalent of cantons in the Federation). --Dzordzm 12:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the UNHCR, the UNECE, the Institute of Statistics, and the [4] BH Embassy all mention the same seven regions suggests that---even if they're not administrative, but merely convenient, like "New England", "The Midwest", etc.---they still may be notable. Just a thought. Bm gub 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ... nevermind, Dzordzm is right.Bm gub 03:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You conveniently forgot to note that BH embassy regions are six in number, not seven. And you know six regions and seven regions can hardly be the same per counting argument. So what do we do? This division is inherently arbitrary. It must go because it does not officially exist. More than anything else, it must go in any form which even hints that these are some strictly defined or officially designated subdivisions akin to cantons in the Federation. --Dzordzm 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - per Dzordzm. --Branislav Jovanovic 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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.