Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deževa Agreement


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) T*U (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Deževa Agreement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing to show that this agreement is notable. With the peculiar use of pronouns and weird grammar, it is a bit difficult to understand, but as I interpret it, only the very first sentence is actually about the agreement, not sourced at all. A Google search for the title finds one single hit outside Wikipedia: This pdf. It says about the agreement: Unfortunately, no documents for this agreement have been preserved, and we know only what Danilo and Pachymeres mentioned. If the article is not deleted, it should at least be draftified until the notability of the agreement can be established by reliable sources and the text is rewritten in proper English. T*U (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. My thanks to for managing to make the article understandable by rewriting it, thereby also indirectly explaining the notability. As the article now stands, I would not hesitate to cast a "Keep" !vote. --T*U (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Sources at 1, 2, and 3. Mccapra (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The kingdom to which this refers is a redirect to the article on the medieval kingdom of Serbia, which was a major state. The article is either a translation or written by a non-native English speaker, using "her" probably to refer to the kingdom (which should be "it".  It seems to indicate a change in policy from alignment with Rome to alignment with eastern Orthodoxy.  If so, it is potentially very significant, but I know far too little of Serbian history to be able to comment further.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one ofthe rare cases where the Google translation of the other language's WP article is clearer than what was written here. Though I do not know the language, I boldly modified the present almost indecipherable article on the basis of that translation, and of related WP articles, so it makes some sense. If this is thought inadequate--and it might be--the best course would be to move it into draft and ask for assistance.  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article on Serbian wiki is much clearer, it think it is a notable subject, the sources are also there. The absence of english hits on google is not a valid reason for deletion. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone can explain why, contrary to appearances, thus isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2020 (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.