Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandar Donski


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aleksandar Donski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person has written some minor books on history. None of them have been peer reviewed or taken seriously by mainstream historians, or used as references. None of them, to the best of my knowledge, have been used as references in Wikipedia and would certainly be rejected as reliable sources. The article seems more like self-promotion and there has been debate to that effect in the talk page. The article has been tagged for some time. Politis (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This was originally appended to the bottom of Articles for deletion/James Baar. All I did was fix the nomination formatting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Probably eligible simply because it's an unreferenced BLP anyways. ~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  Contact Me  · 05:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete – this author is somewhat notable in the sense of being notorious in the field of certain nationalist polemics, and it would certainly be no problem finding coverage of him by his opponents (such as the guy who wrote The Ten Lies of Macedonism), but since most of these will in turn also fail to constitute reliable sources, and we have next to nothing sourced on him as a person (biographical detail etc.), it's probably better to let the article go. Note that the article has in the past fluctuated between being promotional and being an attack page and there had to be admin intervention after OTRS complaints . Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It strike me that the titles of his books suggest that he is a purveyor of FRINGE views. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment The problem I have with this subject is that I can't determine whether he is notable or not. The guy has written a lot of books, none of which I have heard of -- but this doesn't mean anything. None of them are cited in Wikipedia articles -- but, again, this doesn't mean anything. This is really a case where I have to rely on just how much I trust the judgment of my fellow Wikipedians. If this article has been the target of any OTRS tickets, maybe the best solution would be to delete it. But I suspect there are countless articles in the same state as this one: possibly undesirable articles which only an expert can determine whether they should be kept or deleted. And as Wikipedia's scope grows, the number of these problematic articles will increase. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as an author, His books are in almost no Worldcat libraries (That wouldn't be definitive if they were all in Macedonian, but it applies to his English ones also.)   DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 14 August 2010 (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.