Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomoravlje partisan detachment


 * 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. But can be restored for the purpose of merging to an appropriate list of such units.  Sandstein  19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pomoravlje partisan detachment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, and does not meet WP:MILNG as it is a company-sized unit Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable subject, references can be found. It just suppose to be expanded. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have actually looked for sources AND it does not meet the WP:MILNG criteria, could you identify what multiple reliable sources it has significant coverage in? Because my Google Books and Google Scholar  searches turned up exactly zero references to this unit. If you are going to recommend "Keep" please provide a policy-based reason. Thanks. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:MILNG does not really seem like a particularly good fit to the circumstances of guerilla warfare, where smallish units may well be fighting relatively autonomously. But whether it is or not, this simply brings us back to WP:GNG for which in cases like this, Google searches only on English translations of names may not be entirely adequate, partly because translations into English can vary but more because sources are often likely to be in local languages. In this case, GBooks searches on the titles of both the corresponding Serbo-Croat and Serbian Wikipedia articles bring up a few apparently reliable results, all unfortunately in snippet view so it is difficult to assess how substantial they are. They are also mostly over thirty years old (probably unsurprising when one remembers that the Partisans were far more important to Tito's Yugoslavia than to any of its successors), which suggests that a Serbian-spaking editor might well be able to find further sources of a similar age offline. Finally, the one reference currently given in the article is also used in some articles on Serbo-Croat Wikipedia and can presumably be regarded as reliable. On that basis, I think there is probably enough to justify a selective Merge to provide a mention of the detachment in Yugoslav Partisans or a similar article. PWilkinson (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day PWilkinson. I disagree. There were dozens of detachments of this size in the Partisans and Chetniks during WWII. Many of them changed their names several times. You are not suggesting we would mention all of them in the respective articles? And I am still not seeing the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" necessary for WP:NOTE. BTW, I would not make the assumption that a source used in sh or sr WP is reliable just because it is used on multiple articles. That is a very big step. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you may disagree, but i do see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Therefor, this passes NOTE, even more to neutral editors without ulterior motives. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So WW, you are not actually going to point to your alleged "significant coverage", you are just going to blithely state it's there and hope the closing admin trusts you on that. Is that right? You have got to be joking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. If any of the content can be confirmed by offline sources, its few lines could be merged to one the Yugoslav corps articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, no RS, no apparent notability.  GregJackP   Boomer!   13:52, 31 January 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.