Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Belacevac Mine


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belacevac Mine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only one minor mention of this battle (other than sources that copy us), even for the Serbian and Albanian names of the battle. Probably not notable. J.delanoy gabs adds 05:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 3 killed and 7 wounded, with just a few hundred people participating. Not much of a battle.  Perhaps an article for the war itself, or minor battles in it.  Did this receive coverage in whatever languages they speak over there?   D r e a m Focus  22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect and merge to Kosovo War. JJL (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Judging battles by casualty count doesn't seem to necessarily be the best way to do it. matt91486 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's not non-notable, but it's a problem if it's unverifiable. Punkmorten (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: As mentioned above by another user, the number of casualties is probably not a good way to access notability as it is subjective and a rather arbitary method. Many of the battles in more recent conflicts have smaller casualty numbers than battles that occured earlier in history due to their nature and the evolution of weaponry and tactics, etc. Having said that, this article certainly has some issues. The first issue is its problematic title. The title is Battle of the Belacevic Mine, however, the lead sentence calls it the "Second Battle of Belacevic Mine". Is it intended to discuss both, or just the second battle? If so, the title needs to be changed. In regards to sources, there is definate room for improvement, however, I believe that the source labled rather poorly as "1" in the External links section is a reliable source. It links to an article in The Independent. The other link (listed in the References section) also discusses the incident, but I don't know if it could be called reliable or not. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Battles aren't automatically notable, and there's no evidence that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I cannot think of any justifiable reason for deleting an article about a verifiable battle between armies; murderers are one thing - but actual battles are completely different. Operation Miracle is one example of a battle that barely anybody in the Western world has heard of, and you'll find almost no references to it; but careful research can unearth mention in ICOJ proceedings and propaganda from both sides in their native language, to piece together what is (immodestly) an "excellent" article on a battle that has never received any main-stream attention or "notability". It is a record of historical fact, and I consider this article to be the same. In weeks, months, years to come, it will grow as people find new sources in unconventional places. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteability now well established following improvements by editor Sherurcij. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. I've seen bigger 'battles' in the city I live in most Saturday nights! Jw2035 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (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.