Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visoki Dečani


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Interested editors are encouraged to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Visoki Dečani


Contains unverified information that loses the neutrality of the article Kokenspun (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. If there are issues, fix them. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. My vote is in line with WP:ATD-E. This article should be edited, as all relevant concerns can be solved by source-checking and changing the wording structure to be more neutral. Personhumanperson (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The monastery is clearly notable. The presence of "unverified information" is not a reason for deleting the article – instead, find verification or remove the claims. Maproom (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very obviously notable. No idea why the nominator thinks they've given a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong keep! Deletion is not cleanup. Malicious users should be blocked! Kaster (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. The subject of the article has clear notability, unverified information can either be tagged, removed, or have sources provided. Shaws username  .  talk  . 04:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see anything tagged in the article as unverified, citation needed, etc. at the moment. Thus, even if the nomination statement is true, it's premature, as there is no roadmap to fix whatever problems prompted the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable, no good reason for deletion given. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:22, 16 March 2024 (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.