Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Twisted Road to Kosovo


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Twisted Road to Kosovo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book, I believe it fails WP:GNG. There is no substance or content to the article. Also the article lacks references too, most likely because there isn't any sources which suggests lack of coverage in the media. IJA (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the notability guideline, because it's about a single article from a non-notable journal. Our only source is a blog. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to Peter Gowan. I can't really find anything to truly show that this really merits a separate article from Gowan's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Title will be found with a word search. Nothing indicates that this should have its own entry. Also note that this is an issue within a periodical, not a book per se. The periodical is Labour Focus on Eastern Europe ISSN 0141-7746; it is held in US libraries; some issues have multiple authors - this one had a single author. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there any reason why the effort of "relisting" a discussion is worthwhile after three different editors have said that we need to get rid of an article, and none have expressed any reason to keep it? What does "relisting" achieve apart from a fourth editor finding time to agree with the previous three? If AfD were supposed to consider which articles to keep and which to delete, that has already been achieved. On the other hand, if AfD is just a way of consuming volunteers' time, then feel free to click the "relist" button again. bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (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.