Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania's Golgotha


 * 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) sst✈  14:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Albania's Golgotha

 * – ( 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 Literature-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars. 23 editor (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't address the same content, right? It'd probably need to be a merge if done like that. Appable (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 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: Nominator hasn't claimed any deletion reason that falls under deletion criteria and I don't see any reason why POV issues mean this article needs to be deleted (not that it's not an issue, just that I don't think it's something unsolvable), nor does being created by a sockpuppeter. Seems to be sourced somewhat sparsely but adequately to justify an article, likely more sources in non-English language. Appable (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per rationale given above. This article is about a book published in 1913 by an Austrian politician. And there are sources to support it. The nominator's rationale is vague and and "article is questionable and highly POV" demands a minimal discussion at the talk page of the article which is missing.--Mondiad (talk) 18:34, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - nominator has given no real reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Appable, Mondiad, and Davey2010. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This seems to be a description of an Austrian book, highlighting atrocities committed by the Serbian army in the course of the Balkan War and may have had an effect on their subsequent behaviour. If so, it is clearly notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 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.