Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article should be deleted per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory of sources or a repository of links (WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKFARM). Moreover the articles are advocacy WP:FORKs created by a user, who as the result of many discussions was not able to add the sources of his lists on Vojsava Kastrioti started the list articles as a means to include his preferred content on Wikipedia. Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom or Merge. LordVetinari (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could this discussion be merged with Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav? LordVetinari (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and WP:SOAP could be added to those arguments. Wikipedia articles can't be used as blog posts of source collections.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am involved editor who created this article. According to the this rule it is generally considered courteous to notify the "any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". Unfortunately that was not the case with this nomination for deletion.
 * There is a WP:DEL policy which deals with deletion of the articles and reasons for deletions. I believe that this nomination does not meet a single criteria for deletion. Gaius Claudius Nero stated that this article is WP:FORK which violates one wikipedia policy, WP:NOT (precisely WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKFARM).
 * WP:NOT: I believe that this article is obviously not "a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files" so WP:NOT policy is not violated.
 * WP:FORK: clearly say "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are sites that mirror (copy exactly) and fork (copy, but change parts of the material) Wikipedia." It is obviously not case with this article.
 * WP:SOAPS: Since there is no "propaganda, advertising and showcasing" in this article there is no WP:SOAPS.
 * Conclusion: This nomination does not meet any criteria for deletion. There are numerous articles which contain list of sources like: List of sources for the Crusades, List of sources on lidos, List of sources for Disney theatrical animated features, List of sources of Chinese culinary history, List of sources of Korean culinary history, List of mythology books and sources... Based on the very long comment about me, my motifs, abilities and intentions I think that this is content dispute issue rather than AfD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF i.e Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Btw the Disney, the Crusade and the mythology aren't even sources lists in the way you used the term.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and move any reliable and relevant sources into main article. While it is sometimes appropriate to fork subtopics due to length, the main article is very short and that is not a reason here. Matchups 02:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge both articles into the article on the principal subject, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. There's not enough content in all three articles to make one decent article yet, so splitting out is premature. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge both articles into the article on the principal subject, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This simply doesn't need to be a standalone article. If these is notability in reliable sources about this person's ethnic background, then it may be worth a paragraph in the main article.  This is just a linkfarm masquerading as a bibliography. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bibliography =/= article. (These sources could be used to expand the stubby Vojsava Kastrioti article.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. I suggest we merge the information of the two articles into Vojsava Tripalda. --Zoupan (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - or Userfy - These sources may be useful for developing an article, but a listing of them is not appropriate for an article. If an editor wants to keep this as aid for article development, then userfying would be appropriate, otherwise there is no good reason for keeping the article.  There is nothing to merge here.  There is no content to merge here.  It's just a list of source material. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not started for beeing a directory of sources or a repository of links (WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTLINK)--Vinie007 14:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge in the article V. Tripalda, although this view and sources already exist in all the relevant articles. I wonder if this article was created just to pseudo-balance the other one, on "claims that V. was Serbian", to provoke a simultaneous deletion of both in a pretentious "equal" treatment of these two historical views.--46.190.30.234 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge There is little mention here of what seems to me a fact of elephantine unambiguity and obviousness, which is that this nomination is made by one of the participants in a longstanding edit war, and that the loss of this many citations can only have been a detriment to the articles concerned. There is even a related rule: WP:SPEEDYKEEP # 2, distinctions #2 and #4. It was bad behaviour to create the new article, but worse to own the old articles in such a way that the author was moved to create the article. I have no sympathy whatever for this nomination or its political ends, both on Wikipedia and abroad. Anarchangel (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (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.