Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Pomoravlje partisan detachment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:52, 31 January 2013 editGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 edits d← Previous edit Revision as of 19:46, 31 January 2013 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,264 edits Closing debate, result was deleteNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. But can be restored for the purpose of merging to an appropriate list of such units. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}


:{{la|Pomoravlje partisan detachment}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Pomoravlje partisan detachment}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 18: Line 24:
<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /> :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —] (]) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->] :<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —] (]) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
*'''Delete''', no RS, no apparent notability. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Delete''', no RS, no apparent notability. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Revision as of 19:46, 31 January 2013

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

Pomoravlje partisan detachment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable subject, references can be found. It just suppose to be expanded. --WhiteWriter 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --WhiteWriter 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)
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)
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.