Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skanderbeg (military unit)

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. It seems people are unable to decide whether these non-English sources constitute "significant coverage." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg (military unit)

Skanderbeg (military unit) (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)

This unit is mentioned only incidentally or trivially by the sources used in the article. Extensive searches have failed to identify any source that has provided more than a passing mention. It certainly does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. It therefore does not meet

]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 03:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per failure to meet
  TALK) 08:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources prove it existed and with four battalions it was certainly a significant enough formation for an article. Should probably be renamed Skanderbeg Group or Skenderbeg Group, however, as that seems to have been its actual name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proving it existed is not enough for
    WP:GNG. It needs significant coverage in secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Per
  WP:MILUNIT: "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units[3] such as 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry;" This unit was four battalion-level unit which is four times "battalion-level or equivalent units".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It does not have significant coverage in secondary sources (unlike the units you quoted), so it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, let alone MILUNIT, regardless of its supposed size (which is unclear if you actually look at the references). The mentions it does have are in snippets of sentences, it is merely mentioned in passing. There is no detail on it, such as when it was raised and disbanded, who commanded it, how it was equipped or even where and how it was formed, and there is no reasonable likelihood that this information will be available or be added to the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why exactly is there "no reasonable likelihood that this information will be available or be added to the article"? Are you aware for a fact that there are no sources, or are you just going on a Google search? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have looked on Google Books, Google Scholar, and in my own reasonably large collection of books on WWII in the Balkans and came up with nothing that wasn't already in the article. Antidiskriminator has obviously also looked, and has come up with a series of brief mentions in passing in a few non-English sources. It just isn't enough. We know next to nothing about this unit, it just doesn't meet
        WP:GNG. Have you looked? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Do you have lots of books in Italian, Albanian or Serbo-Croat? Personally, I believe that a unit of this size is notable, whether substantial sources can be found or not. And I also suspect that better sources can be found, just not in English. Ask yourself this: would a brigade-sized unit/formation in the English-speaking world be considered pretty much inherently notable? I think the answer is quite clearly yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The answer is no. However, I know the Italian and Serbo-Croat terms around this and haven't been able to find any more references to it. What is notable is notable, per
            WP:GNG. Either there is "significant coverage in secondary sources" or there isn't. There is NO evidence there is more to find. My theory is that this is in fact the Albanian Blackshirt Legion (of four battalions), but there aren't even enough sources to prove that. They just aren't there, and wishing it don't make it so. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]

---

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete; fails the
  general notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not sure There are twelve sources cited here. They seem all to be in non-English languages. What do all these sources say? Why are they being dismissed? Can others here read them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:GNG. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with
  talk) 19:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment:I created this article which deletion is proposed and supported only by small group of editors (Peacemaker67, PRODUCER, Bobrayner and 23 editor) who are frequently involved in disputes against my position (link to editor's interaction search results). All uninvolved editors did not support this deletion. This kind of involvement should be considered to make appropriate decision if there is a valid consensus for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Scurrilous smear. I would have no problem with this article, and would expand it myself if I could find one source that provides significant coverage of it. We don't have a commander, a clear structure, even a clear name. No idea when it was raised, when it was disestablished, where it served (other than during the Uprising), or what weapons it had. From a military perspective we know almost nothing about it from the sources used thus far. I can't find significant coverage, and I've spent quite some time looking before nominating it for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't chased me away from this article also, I would add its official local name based on additional source:

• Vojnoistorijski institut (Belgrade, Serbia) (1982). The National liberation war and revolution in Yugoslavia (1941-1945): selected documents. Military History Institute of the Yugoslav People's Army. pp. 630, 732. ...the Albanian quisling group Skenderbey were brought In to crush the armed rising.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't chase you anywhere. And "Albanian quisling group Skenderbey" is no more the "official local name" than any of the others. There is nothing in that quote that says it was the official name, local or otherwise. What about a commander, weapons, date of creation or disestablishment, other battles, clear structure? Nothing. This source is the same as the others, it is a passing mention with no significant coverage, which is what

WP:GNG mandates. So we have plenty of passing mentions (which largely repeat the exact same superficial information), and that's it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The source, p 732, puts "Skanderbey" under quotation. That was only to reply to your unjustified claim that "We" don't have a clear name. Everybody can look at article's talkpage and see if you chased me away from this article or not. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a translation with Skanderbey in quotes. How am I supposed to work that out, by the vibe? I might as well be talking to a wall. Regardless, the name is the least of the problems this article has with

WP:GNG. Commanders, weapons, dates? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• There was no need for translation because the source I presented is written on English language.
• I don't think that military unit of four battalions was unarmed and without commanders or that it remained unnoticed.
• As I explained on the talkpage, your unnecessarily harsh comments made editing of many articles, including this one, unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment I decided not to edit this article. I noticed that you began commuicating with me on Serbian language (diff), so I guess it won't be too difficult for you to find some additional Serbian language sources about this unit. This is my last comment in this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your responses completely avoid my questions about the lack of significant coverage this unit receives in sources. There are no quotation marks on "Skanderbey" in your quotation, so how are we to know that "Skanderbey" is the official name? For the benefit of other editors reading this, it is very tiresome having to deal with you on multiple pages at once when you consistently fail to comprehend sources in English. When challenged, you retreat, you don't RfC the issue, which is what you would do if you had the slightest idea you might be right. I hate to think how you interpret sources in your native tongue. After dealing with you for a couple of years, my conclusion from probably hundreds if not thousands of interactions is that you are only marginally competent in English to be editing on en WP. What weapons did they have, exactly? Were they German, Yugoslav, Italian rifles or machine guns? Did they have any medium or heavy weapons? Artillery? Mortars? What type were they? What were the names of the commanders? You don't know any of this, because you haven't produced any sources whatsoever that provide that information. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss something as simple as ]

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.