The result was delete. This discussion was made much more difficult than it needed to be by a large contingent of clearly externally canvassed participants. Those organising such campaigns need to understand that they almost never have the desired effect. In fact, they are likely to have precisely the opposite effect. Wikipedia editors will become suspicious and start examining the article in much greater detail than they otherwise would. As it says in the hatnote to this discussion, this is not a vote; mere expressions of support for the article are ignored. What is needed is evidence of notability and this was either completely lacking from most on the keep side, or else they showed an utter misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's definition of notability is.
Only Macedonia1913 made a fair attempt at presenting sources, but these were largely rejected by other editors. Rathfelder gave some support, but their rationale was largely an OTHERSTUFF argument which, as closer, I'm obliged to ignore. That may (or may not) be a good argument for changing guidelines, but it has no bearing on this AfD. The one source that was generally accepted as counting towards notability was the European Diaspora in Australia book. However, it was agreed that this by itself was insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I also note that the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing who have an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best.
There was some discussion of the dissertation being used as a source. Some editors seem to have confused this with a Doctoral thesis. It is not, it is for a Master's degree, as clearly stated on its title page. Doctoral theses are peer reviewed and considered part of the accepted body of scholarly knowledge. Master's theses are not. Nobody argued that this work "had significant scholarly influence" as required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and pointed out by several particicpants. Its hard to see how they could have done since gscholar shows that it has no citations in other works.
Some editors requested that the page be salted. I'm declining to do that, this one is borderline enough that it may be possible to show notability in the future. However, I strongly recommend that any new draft is done by an experienced Wikipedia editor. A third AfD like this one will almost certainly end with the page being pernamently protected from recreation. Spinning Spark 01:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Not a notable organization with very little coverage. The page for this organization has already been deleted one before.
Additionally, it is important to note that members of this organisation have critized before the deletion of this page blaming it on 'Bulgarian & Greek paid wikipedia editors' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4) as well as recently creating some kind of 'Wikipedia taskforce'. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXGhAhd7qc) James Richards ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I re-created the article because I believe there is sufficient coverage of it to exist. There are reliable independent sources like these [1] [2] which cover the subject with good depth. There are several other sources, such as the US Census Bureau, that describe the organization more briefly. Comparing to other diaspora articles that exist, this one has at least as good coverage in RS (yes, I know wp:OTHER but nonetheless worth stating). The second part of the nominator's rationale is irrelevant and does not apply to my editing of this article. -- Local hero talk 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The opinions of individual members of the organization does not represent the opinions of the organization as a whole. The organization has been influential in the Macedonian diaspora, being the main arm of the Macedonian diaspora in the United States, whilst having a significant presence in Canada and Australia as well. -- Dikaiosyni —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong delete. All the coverage is incredibly trivial and short. I'm not even sure every source being cited in that article is reliable. Note an enormous number of sources were deleted by me for them being not independent or not reliable see the page history, so you don't bring up any of those sources if you find them on google. This article is a clear WP:GNG fail. There is no "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail". And moreover, note that "multiple sources are generally expected". The closest that there is to "in-depth coverage" is 2 pages in a 265 page book. Even if we say that counts as in-depth coverage and detailed coverage, which I dispute, the article still totally fails having multiple sources which give it in-depth and detailed coverage. Also note WP:MULTSOURCES "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." And also note that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." Multiple trivial mentions are not sufficient. There needs to be multiple significant sources per the WP:ORG policy. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
oppose: UMD is probably the best known and one of the most influential macedonian diaspora organizations. It definitely deserves a wiki article. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I was attacked personally by this organisation and still suppose its set of socks is voting around. In late April 2020 an online webinar was promoted by its President Meto Koloski: On April 29th, we will host “Wikipedia Warriors: The New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia.” Instructions were provided on the how to change the information here. Jingiby ( talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose : There are quite a bit of online sources both on Google and on Google News about this organization. It is a legitimate organization from what I can gather. News outlets Newsweek, SBS, National Post, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Total Croatia News would not be reporting the organization's statements and views if the organization was not an authority. While Google is a great search engine, it is not the only resource. I encourage editors to use all sources available, including academic, media, governmental, non-governmental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems very suspicious to me that UMD's and only UMD's article is for deletion when for example National Italian American Foundation Page /info/en/?search=National_Italian_American_Foundation with no sources whatsoever isn't threatened with deletion. Wikipedia indeed has a Macedonian problem and it needs to be aknowledged by neutral editors too. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Very important comment: Closing admin has to note that much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda (yes, that seriously happened lol). The decision to keep/delete this page can't be decided by a popularity contest, it has to be decided on policy. It's certainly a very unusual statistical coincidence that a bunch of very new Wikipedia editors all managed to stumble upon this AFD within mere hours of it being nominated for deletion...I've never seen anything like this on an AFD before. WOW! I didn't know that nominating this article for deletion would be such a great recruiting drive for Wikipedia. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Slanders against editors User Apples&Manzanas claims that "much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda" . There is no proof whatsoever that the support this page gets is in any way connected to some unkown campaign made by the organization. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Very important comment, from the opposing side To the closing admin, the reason the article has been brought up for deletion is not why they claim they have. These editors always find technicalities on Wikipedia to manipulate and push their Point of View on Macedonian issues. Firstly, they deleted the UMD article on the basis that it was self-promotion, now they claim that UMD is not a credible organization with a lot of coverage. UMD is a credible Macedonian organization, which engages in diplomacy and advocacy for Macedonian issues. The editors don't like the nature of the organization, since their agenda on Wikipedia is to discredit anything Macedonian. In all articles regarding Macedonia, you will see the same editors editing constantly and pushing their point of view due to technicalities, despite the number of scholars who disagree with the agenda that they are pushing on Wikipedia. For more information, someone has brought this up on other sites: [1] [2] [3] Dikaiosyni ( talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
https://ibb.co/VgYTJ0v https://ibb.co/3h4w0bz
The bios of some of new users involved in this discussion also offers an interesting insight about their aims on Wikipedia especially when you take into account that United Macedonian Diaspora has been calling for meatpuppets outside of Wikipedia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 &
https://ibb.co/XLqZLKL https://ibb.co/yWGxYjG
-- James Richards ( talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Most of the above discussion is just politics, but the fact is there simply there isn't any significant coverage in independent, reliable source except for the book, which is not enough. If others find new sources, I would be glad to change my vote. Neutral This is a borderline case, but there have been many reliable sources that have been introduced, from the book to other papers, that have pushed me towards being neutral. If I were closing this, which I am certainly not, in my opinion there is no consensus either way.
Zoozaz1 (
talk) 03:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete I decided to not vote immediatelly and rather look for WP:RS but there isn't really enough. No significant coverage by WP:RS means the article doesn't fullfill even the basic criteria. I wish we kept it like we do with most Diaspora organizations, but this simply isn't enough by itself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Comment: I have noticed this page has been deleted once already and is now pending 2nd nomination for deletion. I decided to dig further for sources showing this is a legitimate organization. I made changes to the article and cited numerous books, journals, and reports, including a report by the World Bank, and books/journal publications available on Academia.edu and ProQuest. There seem to be a lot of sources in Greek language books and journals, for which I used Google translate to assist in providing as accurate a translation as possible. This organization is not lacking in reliable sources by any means. All the reliable sources I cited in the article were found in easy Google searches using "United Macedonian Diaspora" academia.edu in the search engine. There are more, which can help confirm their legitimacy.
Macedonia1913 (
talk) 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Collapsed away to make this easier to read
|
---|
Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 ( talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Those sources are definitely and absolutely bad:
Response to StanProg:
"Η UMD, όπως αναγράφεται στην περιγραφή της αποστολής της στην ιστοσε- λίδα της ( http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/31/67/, πρόσβαση στις 23/7/2011), α- ποτελεί μια «διεθνή, μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση για τα συμφέροντα και τις ανά- γκες των Μακεδόνων και των μακεδονικών κοινοτήτων σε όλο τον κόσμο εκτός" "στον Μπίτοφ έχει απονεμηθεί το Βραβείο Επιτευγμάτων Μιας Ζωής από την ορ- γάνωση Ενωμένη Μακεδονική Διασπορά (United Macedonian Diaspora – UMD). Ιδιαίτερης προσοχής χρήζει η δήλωση που έκανε κατά την παραλαβή του βραβείου" "Στις ΗΠΑ τα άρθρα ή οι επιστολές που δημοσιεύονται στον ιστοχώρο της UMD δημοσιεύονται στη συνέχεια από το Κέντρο Πληροφοριών Ανοικτής Πηγής (Open Source Center – OSC) του διευθυντή Εθνικών Πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ και διασπεί- ρονται σε όλα τα υπουργεία των ΗΠΑ, καθώς και στις δεκαεπτά υπηρεσίες και ορ- γανισμούς πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ, χωρίς τις αντίθετες (ελληνικές) απόψεις." Macedonia1913 ( talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Response to Apples&Manzanas
In response to Apples&Manzanas:
https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 Macedonia1913 ( talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Vj-QqZ8bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHthAvpwqiI
https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT2012Macedonia_final.pdf
https://www.rferl.org/a/north-macedonia-honeyland-oscars-disappointment-country-proud/30426116.html
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/macedonia-quiet-crossroads
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/greece-accused-of-genocide-of-macedonian-people/1081780
https://www.voanews.com/europe/macedonian-president-veto-name-deal-greece
Brief response by Apples&Manzanas to Macedonia1913: Sigh. Most of those sources were already known about, they are either unreliable or do not provide significant coverage:
My apologies, Apples&Manzanas keeps raising the bar for this organization, and it further proves my point that he has a personal vendetta against the organization.
Thank you to Apples&Manzanas for providing links to relevant Wikipedia pages discussing notability. Under WP:AUD, it states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." - With all the media sources provided the organization has definitely received ample coverage in numerous media outlets around the world based on a simple Google search, or a Google news search. Macedonia1913 ( talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
So we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources. To establish notability, however, we need significant coverage (more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material). We have two book sources that meet that: The European Diaspora in Australia and the Greek book (machine translation can give you a good idea here if you need it, also the book writes UMD in Latin letters). We've got an article (not particularly lengthy) from the US census bureau about the organization. Then, we have sources that are so-so because they're self-published or
Adding to Local hero talk and Cordless Larry: If you visit WP:EMSC, you will note the following: Whether something is enough for significant coverage is up to the discretion of the editor(s) involved. The general notability guideline is extremely vague on this matter. The only thing it states in addition to the two examples quoted above are "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The arguments laid out above by certain editors are null and void in this case. Here are the key sources I found on the organization, which prove that there are enough materials on the organization to constitute a Wikipedia article - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably: Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Macedonia1913 ( talk) 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
In my research, this morning, I discovered the organization featured on the Australian Parliament website: Chapter 2 of Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia features the United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts to improve Australian diplomacy. In the chapter "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) suggested that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT for ‘political, cost-cutting and diplomatic reasons without any meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders like parliamentarians, the corporate sector, diasporas, and citizen diplomacy organisations’. There was often a mismatch, it suggested, between political and bureaucratic priorities and the priorities of key stakeholders. An example given by the UMD was the poor representation in Africa despite the Australian mining industry’s priorities." On the topic of honorary consuls "The United Macedonian Diaspora agreed that honorary consuls were ‘used by many countries as a way of reaching out to various societies with minimal investment.’ If they were provided with resources they could initiate ‘high impact projects’, but ‘without funding it is just talk and very little action.’" "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) provided the following reasons for opening an Australian post in Skopje: the country was growing economically through developing economic relations with ‘the east’ including the Gulf states; an embassy would strengthen ties at the government, business, academic, and sporting levels; and an embassy would serve the ‘unmet needs of tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe.’" "The UMD also suggested that: Australia still does not have an embassy in the Republic of Macedonia in order to appease Athens and the Hellenic lobby in Australia rather than advance its own commercial and strategic interests in Southeast Europe." In another report published by the Parliament of Australia Chapter 8 on Diaspora communities, it states: "The United Macedonian Diaspora notes that ‘diaspora’ now alludes to the global, social, economic, political and environmental networks established by migrant communities to help build the capacity of both their home and host countries." "Appearing before the Committee, the United Macedonian Diaspora provided specific examples of how diaspora communities open up the Australian market to foreign investment and business opportunities. One example is the settled Italian diaspora in Australia. While acknowledging that Italian businesses are dissuaded by Australia’s distance, DFAT informed the Committee that an increasingly diverse range of Italian businesses are setting up contracts in Australia due to a climate of confidence, trust and familiarity: There have been decisions by some of the larger agricultural Italian companies like Monini, which is a major olive oil producing company, to buy land and produce olive oil in Australia." Macedonia1913 ( talk) 12:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Delete.
Jingiby (
talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC) this is a duplicate vote.
Username
6892 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose deletion I am not going to mention anything further, everything has been discussed. My final verdict on this is that the organization has notability, thus the Wikipedia page should exist.
Dikaiosyni (
talk) 13:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) This is a duplicate vote.
Username
6892 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Strong Belief and Proof that Organization is Being Targeted, Harassed, and Bullied (See: WP:BULLY)
According to the article Diaspora politics in the United States, the United Macedonian Diaspora is mentioned as the main organization for the ethnic group Macedonian-Americans. I reviewed the Wikipedia pages for several similar organizations listed on the same Wikipedia page and most of them use sources from their websites and publications, yet they all have pages on Wikipedia and no deletion requests. I am not posting this comment to draw attention that other organizational pages should be deleted by any means - Wikipedia is enriched by having all these pages, including that of the United Macedonian Diaspora. Based on all of this evidence provided, the sources, these pages, it is more than clear that this organization is being targeted by a group of editors on Wikipedia with some agenda - I do not know what that agenda is and what they hope to accomplish by having this organizational page deleted. WP:BULLY is the obvious definition of what these editors have been doing towards this organization.
Some examples of other organizational pages with self-publishing sources: Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of America, Arab American Institute, American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, Polish American Congress, Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.
Several of these pages have the following message at the top "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, none of them are up for deletion. Why weren't the same standards applied to the United Macedonian Diaspora? How are they any different? Macedonia1913 ( talk) 01:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Like these pages /info/en/?search=National_Italian_American_Foundation and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Turkish_Friendship_Council ? -- James Richards ( talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Macedonia1913:, you can see me making all the same arguments to delete pages like this and this one. You need to stop making personal character attacks like this. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 02:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
We have already had this argument already on this thread, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also say the difference is simply due to the fact that they are different organizations, with a different amount of sources covering them. This organization is up for deletion simply because of notability, as determined by reliable, independent sources, and apparently those other articles have notability as determined by reliable, independent sources. If they don't I would put those ones up for deletion. This is not about ethnicity; this is about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a side note, sources from their own website do not contribute to notability but can be used to verify basic facts about an organization. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Apples&Manzanas per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers , Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't be a Wikipedia:WikiVampire and of course, limit Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni ( talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
see also WP:NOTHING
Also Инокентиј maybe while you are at it with battling censorship, bigotry and hatred maybe look at some of the articles on the Macedonian Wikipedia about Alexander the Great, Tsar Samuil and Gotse Delchev. And maybe make them more 'encyclopedic'. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No need for anymore Martin Luther King Jr. speeches please, the reason I nominated this up for deletion was 'Not a notable organization with very little coverage.'. So maybe keep it about the sources rather than going of on a tangent about what Wikipedia should be and how people are trying to censor Macedonians. I have already been called a Bulgarian multiple times. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Kiril Simeonovski - perhaps you can advise and help improve the article with my edits, which some of the above users kept deleting saying they were not credible sources, even logging a copyright claim against me. In the history section you'll be able to see edits I made to help improve the article. Unfortunately, now I cannot submit edits as it seems the page is protected. My sources, 8 to be exact, one in Greek, which I translated, can be found above in the discussion which was hidden.
My edits:
In the book "The Macedonian Diaspora: Key to the Development of the Republic of Macedonia," Dr. Zlatko Nikoloski writes that the United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) "is a high-level “think-tank”, seated in the world “seat of power”, Washington, with a "representative office and activities organized in Australia, of which the mission is to constitute a powerful Macedonian" voice "consisting of young Macedonians"...."globally unifying the Macedonian Diaspora, thus helping the development of the Republic of Macedonia.."
According to Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia, United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts improve Australian diplomacy. An example of this is UMD's proposal that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT, instead of other stakeholders, due to political, cost-cutting, and diplomatic reasons. Another example of this is their proposal of opening an Australian Embassy in Skopje, claiming that country's economy is expanding and establishing ties with 'the East', that an embassy would strengthen ties at multiple levels, and that an embassy would be beneficial for of "tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe."
Two Sources:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jfadt/Overseas%20Representation/report/chapter2 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/report/chapter8.pdf
Thank you!
Macedonia1913 ( talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. This discussion was made much more difficult than it needed to be by a large contingent of clearly externally canvassed participants. Those organising such campaigns need to understand that they almost never have the desired effect. In fact, they are likely to have precisely the opposite effect. Wikipedia editors will become suspicious and start examining the article in much greater detail than they otherwise would. As it says in the hatnote to this discussion, this is not a vote; mere expressions of support for the article are ignored. What is needed is evidence of notability and this was either completely lacking from most on the keep side, or else they showed an utter misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's definition of notability is.
Only Macedonia1913 made a fair attempt at presenting sources, but these were largely rejected by other editors. Rathfelder gave some support, but their rationale was largely an OTHERSTUFF argument which, as closer, I'm obliged to ignore. That may (or may not) be a good argument for changing guidelines, but it has no bearing on this AfD. The one source that was generally accepted as counting towards notability was the European Diaspora in Australia book. However, it was agreed that this by itself was insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I also note that the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing who have an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best.
There was some discussion of the dissertation being used as a source. Some editors seem to have confused this with a Doctoral thesis. It is not, it is for a Master's degree, as clearly stated on its title page. Doctoral theses are peer reviewed and considered part of the accepted body of scholarly knowledge. Master's theses are not. Nobody argued that this work "had significant scholarly influence" as required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and pointed out by several particicpants. Its hard to see how they could have done since gscholar shows that it has no citations in other works.
Some editors requested that the page be salted. I'm declining to do that, this one is borderline enough that it may be possible to show notability in the future. However, I strongly recommend that any new draft is done by an experienced Wikipedia editor. A third AfD like this one will almost certainly end with the page being pernamently protected from recreation. Spinning Spark 01:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Not a notable organization with very little coverage. The page for this organization has already been deleted one before.
Additionally, it is important to note that members of this organisation have critized before the deletion of this page blaming it on 'Bulgarian & Greek paid wikipedia editors' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4) as well as recently creating some kind of 'Wikipedia taskforce'. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXGhAhd7qc) James Richards ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I re-created the article because I believe there is sufficient coverage of it to exist. There are reliable independent sources like these [1] [2] which cover the subject with good depth. There are several other sources, such as the US Census Bureau, that describe the organization more briefly. Comparing to other diaspora articles that exist, this one has at least as good coverage in RS (yes, I know wp:OTHER but nonetheless worth stating). The second part of the nominator's rationale is irrelevant and does not apply to my editing of this article. -- Local hero talk 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The opinions of individual members of the organization does not represent the opinions of the organization as a whole. The organization has been influential in the Macedonian diaspora, being the main arm of the Macedonian diaspora in the United States, whilst having a significant presence in Canada and Australia as well. -- Dikaiosyni —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong delete. All the coverage is incredibly trivial and short. I'm not even sure every source being cited in that article is reliable. Note an enormous number of sources were deleted by me for them being not independent or not reliable see the page history, so you don't bring up any of those sources if you find them on google. This article is a clear WP:GNG fail. There is no "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail". And moreover, note that "multiple sources are generally expected". The closest that there is to "in-depth coverage" is 2 pages in a 265 page book. Even if we say that counts as in-depth coverage and detailed coverage, which I dispute, the article still totally fails having multiple sources which give it in-depth and detailed coverage. Also note WP:MULTSOURCES "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." And also note that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." Multiple trivial mentions are not sufficient. There needs to be multiple significant sources per the WP:ORG policy. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
oppose: UMD is probably the best known and one of the most influential macedonian diaspora organizations. It definitely deserves a wiki article. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I was attacked personally by this organisation and still suppose its set of socks is voting around. In late April 2020 an online webinar was promoted by its President Meto Koloski: On April 29th, we will host “Wikipedia Warriors: The New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia.” Instructions were provided on the how to change the information here. Jingiby ( talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose : There are quite a bit of online sources both on Google and on Google News about this organization. It is a legitimate organization from what I can gather. News outlets Newsweek, SBS, National Post, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Total Croatia News would not be reporting the organization's statements and views if the organization was not an authority. While Google is a great search engine, it is not the only resource. I encourage editors to use all sources available, including academic, media, governmental, non-governmental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems very suspicious to me that UMD's and only UMD's article is for deletion when for example National Italian American Foundation Page /info/en/?search=National_Italian_American_Foundation with no sources whatsoever isn't threatened with deletion. Wikipedia indeed has a Macedonian problem and it needs to be aknowledged by neutral editors too. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Very important comment: Closing admin has to note that much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda (yes, that seriously happened lol). The decision to keep/delete this page can't be decided by a popularity contest, it has to be decided on policy. It's certainly a very unusual statistical coincidence that a bunch of very new Wikipedia editors all managed to stumble upon this AFD within mere hours of it being nominated for deletion...I've never seen anything like this on an AFD before. WOW! I didn't know that nominating this article for deletion would be such a great recruiting drive for Wikipedia. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Slanders against editors User Apples&Manzanas claims that "much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda" . There is no proof whatsoever that the support this page gets is in any way connected to some unkown campaign made by the organization. Тутуноберач ( talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Very important comment, from the opposing side To the closing admin, the reason the article has been brought up for deletion is not why they claim they have. These editors always find technicalities on Wikipedia to manipulate and push their Point of View on Macedonian issues. Firstly, they deleted the UMD article on the basis that it was self-promotion, now they claim that UMD is not a credible organization with a lot of coverage. UMD is a credible Macedonian organization, which engages in diplomacy and advocacy for Macedonian issues. The editors don't like the nature of the organization, since their agenda on Wikipedia is to discredit anything Macedonian. In all articles regarding Macedonia, you will see the same editors editing constantly and pushing their point of view due to technicalities, despite the number of scholars who disagree with the agenda that they are pushing on Wikipedia. For more information, someone has brought this up on other sites: [1] [2] [3] Dikaiosyni ( talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
https://ibb.co/VgYTJ0v https://ibb.co/3h4w0bz
The bios of some of new users involved in this discussion also offers an interesting insight about their aims on Wikipedia especially when you take into account that United Macedonian Diaspora has been calling for meatpuppets outside of Wikipedia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 &
https://ibb.co/XLqZLKL https://ibb.co/yWGxYjG
-- James Richards ( talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Most of the above discussion is just politics, but the fact is there simply there isn't any significant coverage in independent, reliable source except for the book, which is not enough. If others find new sources, I would be glad to change my vote. Neutral This is a borderline case, but there have been many reliable sources that have been introduced, from the book to other papers, that have pushed me towards being neutral. If I were closing this, which I am certainly not, in my opinion there is no consensus either way.
Zoozaz1 (
talk) 03:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete I decided to not vote immediatelly and rather look for WP:RS but there isn't really enough. No significant coverage by WP:RS means the article doesn't fullfill even the basic criteria. I wish we kept it like we do with most Diaspora organizations, but this simply isn't enough by itself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Comment: I have noticed this page has been deleted once already and is now pending 2nd nomination for deletion. I decided to dig further for sources showing this is a legitimate organization. I made changes to the article and cited numerous books, journals, and reports, including a report by the World Bank, and books/journal publications available on Academia.edu and ProQuest. There seem to be a lot of sources in Greek language books and journals, for which I used Google translate to assist in providing as accurate a translation as possible. This organization is not lacking in reliable sources by any means. All the reliable sources I cited in the article were found in easy Google searches using "United Macedonian Diaspora" academia.edu in the search engine. There are more, which can help confirm their legitimacy.
Macedonia1913 (
talk) 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Collapsed away to make this easier to read
|
---|
Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 ( talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Those sources are definitely and absolutely bad:
Response to StanProg:
"Η UMD, όπως αναγράφεται στην περιγραφή της αποστολής της στην ιστοσε- λίδα της ( http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/31/67/, πρόσβαση στις 23/7/2011), α- ποτελεί μια «διεθνή, μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση για τα συμφέροντα και τις ανά- γκες των Μακεδόνων και των μακεδονικών κοινοτήτων σε όλο τον κόσμο εκτός" "στον Μπίτοφ έχει απονεμηθεί το Βραβείο Επιτευγμάτων Μιας Ζωής από την ορ- γάνωση Ενωμένη Μακεδονική Διασπορά (United Macedonian Diaspora – UMD). Ιδιαίτερης προσοχής χρήζει η δήλωση που έκανε κατά την παραλαβή του βραβείου" "Στις ΗΠΑ τα άρθρα ή οι επιστολές που δημοσιεύονται στον ιστοχώρο της UMD δημοσιεύονται στη συνέχεια από το Κέντρο Πληροφοριών Ανοικτής Πηγής (Open Source Center – OSC) του διευθυντή Εθνικών Πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ και διασπεί- ρονται σε όλα τα υπουργεία των ΗΠΑ, καθώς και στις δεκαεπτά υπηρεσίες και ορ- γανισμούς πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ, χωρίς τις αντίθετες (ελληνικές) απόψεις." Macedonia1913 ( talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Response to Apples&Manzanas
In response to Apples&Manzanas:
https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 Macedonia1913 ( talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Vj-QqZ8bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHthAvpwqiI
https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT2012Macedonia_final.pdf
https://www.rferl.org/a/north-macedonia-honeyland-oscars-disappointment-country-proud/30426116.html
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/macedonia-quiet-crossroads
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/greece-accused-of-genocide-of-macedonian-people/1081780
https://www.voanews.com/europe/macedonian-president-veto-name-deal-greece
Brief response by Apples&Manzanas to Macedonia1913: Sigh. Most of those sources were already known about, they are either unreliable or do not provide significant coverage:
My apologies, Apples&Manzanas keeps raising the bar for this organization, and it further proves my point that he has a personal vendetta against the organization.
Thank you to Apples&Manzanas for providing links to relevant Wikipedia pages discussing notability. Under WP:AUD, it states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." - With all the media sources provided the organization has definitely received ample coverage in numerous media outlets around the world based on a simple Google search, or a Google news search. Macedonia1913 ( talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
So we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources. To establish notability, however, we need significant coverage (more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material). We have two book sources that meet that: The European Diaspora in Australia and the Greek book (machine translation can give you a good idea here if you need it, also the book writes UMD in Latin letters). We've got an article (not particularly lengthy) from the US census bureau about the organization. Then, we have sources that are so-so because they're self-published or
Adding to Local hero talk and Cordless Larry: If you visit WP:EMSC, you will note the following: Whether something is enough for significant coverage is up to the discretion of the editor(s) involved. The general notability guideline is extremely vague on this matter. The only thing it states in addition to the two examples quoted above are "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The arguments laid out above by certain editors are null and void in this case. Here are the key sources I found on the organization, which prove that there are enough materials on the organization to constitute a Wikipedia article - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably: Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Macedonia1913 ( talk) 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
In my research, this morning, I discovered the organization featured on the Australian Parliament website: Chapter 2 of Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia features the United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts to improve Australian diplomacy. In the chapter "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) suggested that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT for ‘political, cost-cutting and diplomatic reasons without any meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders like parliamentarians, the corporate sector, diasporas, and citizen diplomacy organisations’. There was often a mismatch, it suggested, between political and bureaucratic priorities and the priorities of key stakeholders. An example given by the UMD was the poor representation in Africa despite the Australian mining industry’s priorities." On the topic of honorary consuls "The United Macedonian Diaspora agreed that honorary consuls were ‘used by many countries as a way of reaching out to various societies with minimal investment.’ If they were provided with resources they could initiate ‘high impact projects’, but ‘without funding it is just talk and very little action.’" "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) provided the following reasons for opening an Australian post in Skopje: the country was growing economically through developing economic relations with ‘the east’ including the Gulf states; an embassy would strengthen ties at the government, business, academic, and sporting levels; and an embassy would serve the ‘unmet needs of tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe.’" "The UMD also suggested that: Australia still does not have an embassy in the Republic of Macedonia in order to appease Athens and the Hellenic lobby in Australia rather than advance its own commercial and strategic interests in Southeast Europe." In another report published by the Parliament of Australia Chapter 8 on Diaspora communities, it states: "The United Macedonian Diaspora notes that ‘diaspora’ now alludes to the global, social, economic, political and environmental networks established by migrant communities to help build the capacity of both their home and host countries." "Appearing before the Committee, the United Macedonian Diaspora provided specific examples of how diaspora communities open up the Australian market to foreign investment and business opportunities. One example is the settled Italian diaspora in Australia. While acknowledging that Italian businesses are dissuaded by Australia’s distance, DFAT informed the Committee that an increasingly diverse range of Italian businesses are setting up contracts in Australia due to a climate of confidence, trust and familiarity: There have been decisions by some of the larger agricultural Italian companies like Monini, which is a major olive oil producing company, to buy land and produce olive oil in Australia." Macedonia1913 ( talk) 12:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Delete.
Jingiby (
talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC) this is a duplicate vote.
Username
6892 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose deletion I am not going to mention anything further, everything has been discussed. My final verdict on this is that the organization has notability, thus the Wikipedia page should exist.
Dikaiosyni (
talk) 13:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) This is a duplicate vote.
Username
6892 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Strong Belief and Proof that Organization is Being Targeted, Harassed, and Bullied (See: WP:BULLY)
According to the article Diaspora politics in the United States, the United Macedonian Diaspora is mentioned as the main organization for the ethnic group Macedonian-Americans. I reviewed the Wikipedia pages for several similar organizations listed on the same Wikipedia page and most of them use sources from their websites and publications, yet they all have pages on Wikipedia and no deletion requests. I am not posting this comment to draw attention that other organizational pages should be deleted by any means - Wikipedia is enriched by having all these pages, including that of the United Macedonian Diaspora. Based on all of this evidence provided, the sources, these pages, it is more than clear that this organization is being targeted by a group of editors on Wikipedia with some agenda - I do not know what that agenda is and what they hope to accomplish by having this organizational page deleted. WP:BULLY is the obvious definition of what these editors have been doing towards this organization.
Some examples of other organizational pages with self-publishing sources: Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of America, Arab American Institute, American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, Polish American Congress, Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.
Several of these pages have the following message at the top "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, none of them are up for deletion. Why weren't the same standards applied to the United Macedonian Diaspora? How are they any different? Macedonia1913 ( talk) 01:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Like these pages /info/en/?search=National_Italian_American_Foundation and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Turkish_Friendship_Council ? -- James Richards ( talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Macedonia1913:, you can see me making all the same arguments to delete pages like this and this one. You need to stop making personal character attacks like this. Apples&Manzanas ( talk) 02:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
We have already had this argument already on this thread, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also say the difference is simply due to the fact that they are different organizations, with a different amount of sources covering them. This organization is up for deletion simply because of notability, as determined by reliable, independent sources, and apparently those other articles have notability as determined by reliable, independent sources. If they don't I would put those ones up for deletion. This is not about ethnicity; this is about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a side note, sources from their own website do not contribute to notability but can be used to verify basic facts about an organization. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear User:Apples&Manzanas per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers , Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't be a Wikipedia:WikiVampire and of course, limit Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni ( talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
see also WP:NOTHING
Also Инокентиј maybe while you are at it with battling censorship, bigotry and hatred maybe look at some of the articles on the Macedonian Wikipedia about Alexander the Great, Tsar Samuil and Gotse Delchev. And maybe make them more 'encyclopedic'. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No need for anymore Martin Luther King Jr. speeches please, the reason I nominated this up for deletion was 'Not a notable organization with very little coverage.'. So maybe keep it about the sources rather than going of on a tangent about what Wikipedia should be and how people are trying to censor Macedonians. I have already been called a Bulgarian multiple times. -- James Richards ( talk) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Kiril Simeonovski - perhaps you can advise and help improve the article with my edits, which some of the above users kept deleting saying they were not credible sources, even logging a copyright claim against me. In the history section you'll be able to see edits I made to help improve the article. Unfortunately, now I cannot submit edits as it seems the page is protected. My sources, 8 to be exact, one in Greek, which I translated, can be found above in the discussion which was hidden.
My edits:
In the book "The Macedonian Diaspora: Key to the Development of the Republic of Macedonia," Dr. Zlatko Nikoloski writes that the United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) "is a high-level “think-tank”, seated in the world “seat of power”, Washington, with a "representative office and activities organized in Australia, of which the mission is to constitute a powerful Macedonian" voice "consisting of young Macedonians"...."globally unifying the Macedonian Diaspora, thus helping the development of the Republic of Macedonia.."
According to Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia, United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts improve Australian diplomacy. An example of this is UMD's proposal that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT, instead of other stakeholders, due to political, cost-cutting, and diplomatic reasons. Another example of this is their proposal of opening an Australian Embassy in Skopje, claiming that country's economy is expanding and establishing ties with 'the East', that an embassy would strengthen ties at multiple levels, and that an embassy would be beneficial for of "tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe."
Two Sources:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jfadt/Overseas%20Representation/report/chapter2 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/report/chapter8.pdf
Thank you!
Macedonia1913 ( talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)