Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apology of Scanderbeg


 * 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. In my view, the "merge" opinions are better argued, but there's no consensus for a merger here. This discussion can continue on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The Apology of Scanderbeg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is almost incomprehensible, due to a combination of poor English, non-neutral viewpoint, and lack of organization. The only reference is to a work in a foreign language that (contrary to the statement of this article) is not Latin. If this is meant to be an article about the work, it should cite both the work and reliable sources who have stated that the work is notable. As it is, this does not establish notability as to whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs to be dramatically improved, and it appears that Albanian editors are currently doing so. I suspect that sources do exist, though they are not present. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or potentially redirect to Frang Bardhi (where it is already mentioned). There are a lot of problems here, not the least of which is that most of the text is a (probably machine-translated) copyvio of this source. That notwithstanding, there has clearly been at least one full cycle of translation for some of this material, and as a result it gets a lot simply wrong. "Tomko Margnavici" is Ivan Tomko Mrnavić (also styled as the Latinized Tomeus Marnavitius, but never as anything similar to "Margnavici"), for example. And the actual title of the work—Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotatum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus—has a rather different generally recognized English translation than given here. Finally, the title here is something of an issue, and makes me nervous about a redirect; there are exactly two sources that refer to this work as the "Apology of Scanderbeg" (or Skanderbeg): one is the source that this is largely copied from, and the other is a trivial mention on the website of the municipal library in Lezhë. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am pretty sure it is notable, as I have found a journal article that specifically addresses this work (written in Albanian, but the abstract is in English). It refers to this as notable as the first polemic written by an Albanian about an Albanian subject.  I don't think it is well known in English but if this is a translation of the commonly used (in ALbania) abbreviated title, I don't have a problem with it - we certainly don't want to call it Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus if we can avoid it (although I would suggest, since it is a translation and not a commonly used English name, that we rename to use the Skanderbeg spelling used elsewhere on en.wiki for the hero).  I have tried to clean up the language and removed the over-the-top praise given the author, and there is more work to be done - there is a quote that is poorly translated.  However, I think it likely meets the bar for notability, so we should look at improving rather than deleting it. Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It feels notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge It would be worth an article, except that there is a real problem with the title that would make it preferable to merge. TThe current one is is a made-up title for the book. It appears there is no convenient title in any modern language. The Latin title cited above Georgius Castriottus Epirensis vulgo Scanderbegh, Epirotarum Princeps fortissimus ac invictissimus suis et Patriae restitutus is the title of the book, . We could give a literal translation--there's a source for one in Elsie's Historical Dictionary of Albania as published], found also in the same word in that writer's A biographical dictionary of Albanian History -- it would be George Castrioti of Epirus, commonly called Scanderbeg, the very mighty and invincible prince of Epirus restored to his people and his country'', as mentioned also in the article.  The article must be called one or the other. It would be easier to find if it were merged in the article for the author.   According to WP:N, meeting the notability standard does not guarantee an article if there are other considerations.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article in the refs by Lulëzim Lajçi, and the numerous google books results suggest to me that the subject is notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:11, 31 May 2017 (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.