Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj


 * 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per rationale by IJA.--Mondiad (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. The refs used in the article are unrealiable, as per RS-board. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Z oupan 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Malsia.eu was deemed unreliable, as per other nationalistic sites. Dedushaj is obviously unreliable. The two others sources are works on folklore, don't see why, as I said, a summarization into List of Kachaks is unwanted?--Z oupan 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is the University of Michigan an unreliable source? It can be mentioned on List of Kachaks, but why isn't its own article allowed even if it is a stub? IJA (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow delete No notability whatsoever. 0 Google hits for "Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj" -wikipedia. Please explain how WP:GNG applies to an article with 0 Google hots on the title. --T*U (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise google books hits was a necessity to define notability... Oh wait it isn't! Why is the University of Michigan an unreliable source? IJA (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not mention Google Books. I mentioned 0 Google hits. I have more than 100 Google hits on my name, and I can assure you I am not notable. As to Michigan, I dio not read Albanian, so I cannot read the source, but does it really say anything about Ahmet Zenel Gjonbalaj that indicates that he is notable? --T*U (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- adequately sourced. The two University of Michigan sources appear to refer to "folk lore".  If he is the subject of a significant folk tale, that would make him notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2016 (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.