Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women of Krusha e Madhe


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Women of Krusha e Madhe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has highly questionable notability. Much of it reads like some sort of advertisement or promotion created to attract attention to a poor village at the corner of Europe. The article is also highly slanted towards the Albanian POV. 23 editor (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "Albanian POV"? bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 23 editor, what do you mean by "Albanian POV"? bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 23 editor, what do you mean by "Albanian POV"? bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The tone is clearly unencyclopediac. I think it'd be best if this article was merged into Massacre at Krusha e Madhe. -- Local hero talk 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You've failed to prove the notability of this topic. 23 editor (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep selected content, but.... I am not entirely convinced that the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but the place itself (name Krushë e Madhe 42.32°N, -20.634°W, according to Google Maps) would definitely seem to satisfy our usual criteria for its own article, and we already have one section in this article that (with some attention to peacock wording) would make a good start. And there would be good reason to include a further paragraph or two on the women, condensed from the rest of this article with an eye to WP:NPOV, there, and also something similar as part of a Aftermath section in Massacre at Krusha e Madhe. PWilkinson (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you leaning towards a merge to Massacre at Krusha e Madhe then? The point is this is probably WP PROMOTION (judging from the emphasis put on the local economy) intended to "attract" (I don't how much success they'd have) investors to a village in Kosovo. I did not sign up for Wikipedia to keep track of promotional texts (and poorly-written ones, at that). 23 editor (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By itself, that would be my second choice. My first choice, as we do not have an article on the village (and I would point out that almost any English village of a similar size, or indeed quite a bit smaller, has a Wikipedia article), would be to create an article on the village, starting with some of the less promotional information and more reliable sources from this article. This can reasonably include something on the village's economy and its recovery from the massacre (as well, of course, as a short paragraph or two on the massacre but referring to the main article on that for further information), but probably with only a fraction of the current detail. PWilkinson (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Given the barnstars and user boxes currently displayed on 23 editor's user page, I'm wondering why he hasn't declared an interest here? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? 23 editor (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing: Should editors who participated at Wiki Academy Kosovo also declare an interest here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it disgusting that the person who writes "the best" article gets a prize (money?) for "presenting Kosovo to the world" (not to mention the extremely poor quality of the articles). A free encyclopedia, huh? 23 editor (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is discussed in multiple external sources, which are cited in the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not just random women, these are women that have remained as lone caretakers of their families who went on to develop self-sustenance. The situation is unique enough to merit an article. --Arianit (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the situation is not unique. Wars have been fought for thousands of years and thousands of villages have been left with widowed women. Do I even have to mention the insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic? 23 editor (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - I don't think that article on this group of women meets requests of WP:GROUP. The depth of coverage is not substantial. Per WP:CORPDEPTH: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. That is why this article should be merged in the article about massacre.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The story of the perseverance of these women merits its own article. I think that by merging this article with the massacre article, we would be doing a greater injustice to these people and portraying them as victims. The Massacre article speaks of victims and villains. This article is about perseverance as a result of desperateness. @23 editor - you should not display your personal prejudice upon a people in this encyclopedia. I have seen more than one example of your disruptive editing, which have been addressed to in your talk page. Please be civil if you want to show civility. --Atdheu (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I like your tone, my friend. "Story of the perseverance of these women merits its own article" is not a guideline for whether or an article should exist or not. You have failed to address the lack of insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic and the topics notability. 23 editor (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This an in depth article which is full of rich content. It's coverage in the references proves it's notability. IJA (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the majority of sources cover the economy of the town and the town itself, not the women in it. 23 editor (talk) 13:47, 12 March 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.