Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Monastir (1917)


 * 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. this content, without prejudice to re-creation as a redirect if there is a useful target. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Monastir (1917)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no reliable sources to confirm that the events described in the article really happened. The "citation" and "POV" tags have been added for 3 months and there is still not a single reference to confirm the (rather ostentatious) claims made here. The article appears to be a translation of its Bulgarian and/or Russian versions, which do not have a source either apart from a webpage. Note that there was a Monastir Offensive at the end of 1916, but that one is described in another article and is well-sourced.
 * Yes, Delete as not verified and it cannnot be easily verified via English searches on internet. Iselilja (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: there was action to the north of Monastir during that time frame, but I could not find references providing this level of detail. (The available references are actually a muddled up mess that seem to contradict each other.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:HOAX. I cannot find any reliable sources that can verify that this event exists, therefore it fails WP:GNG. There are reliable sources regarding a battle of this name occurring in 1912, but not in 1917.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete Indeed looks like a hoax from 2008 unless there a reliable sources that I have not found. The original author was Gligan whom I have notified. Mcewan (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It appears there may have been a Battle of Monastir in 1916, that was a French victory, but not this. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I located a brief reference in the Almanac of World War I. In case the Google Books preview link doesn't work for everyone, it reads, "17 May 1917....Salonika: A combined Italian-French attack to the north of Monastir fails, as the Germans and Bulgarians have reinforced their front lines."  Aside from the minor discrepancy in date (the article gives "May 18"), this does support the basic claim that the French suffered a defeat near Monastir.  At the very least the article is not a WP:HOAX, although notability has yet to be demonstrated.  I also searched the Google newspaper archive for stories mentioning Monastir published between March and May 1917 (see query).  Apparently, French forces did attack German defenders at Monastir in March 1917 .  Newspaper reports dated May 18 declare that the British and French were making good progress against the Central Powers on the Macedonian front  - which does seem somewhat contradictory with respect to the article and the statement from the Almanac.  I suspect that historical sources published in French, Italian, Bulgarian, Russian, or Macedonian may contain a fuller account of the events that transpired at that time.  For anyone interested in searching further, the sources accompanying Battle of the Cerna Bend (1917) also appear to be promising sources in which to look for information about this battle. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if the battle existed, the lack of sources both listed in the article and on web searches points to non-notability. Ansh666 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice - if not a complete hoax, it is completely unsupported by general sources on the Salonika Front, as the current article states the defenders were Bulgarian not German per above. Utterly un-notable as a purported Bulgarian-French battle if it occurred at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Battle of the Cerna Bend (1917). I agree with the others that the article's content should be deleted in light of the failure to satisfy WP:GNG and the general untrustworthiness of the unreferenced material.  However, it is my view that the article itself should be preserved as a redirect.  A fresh search turned up two additional sources.  One applies the label "the second battle of Monastir" (9-14 May 1917)" to this engagement  and the other describes how "The second battle of Bitola, also known as the second battle of the Cherna Bend, began on 5 May 1917..." . ("Monastir" was the name of the city during Ottoman times; by the outbreak of WWI, it was also known under the alternate name Bitola so "Battle of Bitola" and "Battle of Monastir" are just different labels for the same event.)  These sources demonstrate that "Battle of Monastir (1917)" is a valid alternate descriptor for the "Battle of the Cerna Bend" and hence a potential search term.  WP already has an article on this battle which is a logical redirect destination.  Moreover, redirects are cheap (WP:CHEAP). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2013 (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.