Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) (3rd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn. I procedurally renominated the article to see if consensus could be achieved if participation was limited to perspectives from outside the Balkans topic area. But so far, nobody has offered such a perspective, and multiple editors have expressed concerns about my approach. That's why I conclude that this AfD is unlikely to result in a consensus either, and therefore I am withdrawing it. This means that the "no consensus" outcome of the previous two AfDs is where we're at for now. Sandstein 06:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous two AfDs reached no consensus about whether this article should be deleted as original research by synthesis. People strongly disagreed about whether there are reliable sources that establish that these massacres took place. My impression is that the personal association of many editors with one country or another from the Balkans influenced the views they expressed.

I'm therefore trying something new: I'm procedurally renominating the article, but with the following WP:AC/DS restriction, per WP:ARBEE#Standard discretionary sanctions: Editors associated with the Balkans may not edit this page. They may also not participate in any deletion review of this discussion. (Edit: The same restriction applies to editors who are not extended confirmed per WP:ECP, as enforced by page protection.)

For the purposes of this sanction, an editor is deemed to be associated with the Balkans if ~~their username or user page indicates or previously indicated any connection to a place in the Balkans, or~~ if they have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans, or if they were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans, or for other similar reasons as determined by me or another uninvolved administrator.

Contributions in violation of this sanction may be removed by any uninvolved administrator (but not other users). Such contributions can be reported on this AfD's talk page. Editors who disagree with the restriction can appeal it at WP:AE.

I hope that this allows other Wikipedians to come to a consensus about the the merits of this article. I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well (and indeed some are cited in the article).

This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to strike mention of Balkans self-identification on user pages, per concerns about discrimination on my talk page. Sandstein 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The idea that editors should be banned from this AfD discussion merely because they have any connection to a place in the Balkans or have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans seems improper to me, although I can't find a specific policy that prohibits that. (Wikipedia:Discrimination is a dormant proposal, Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy is a draft, and foundation:Non-discrimination policy doesn't apply to editors.) Even if such a restriction were permissible, I would still support a speedy close to this AfD, because the nominator has not taken a position in favor of deletion, nor even explained the arguments for and against deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein has now revised the sanctions on this page to a standard which is nondiscriminatory, and so I no longer object to the discretionary sanctions being imposed. That said, we still don't have any discussion here that takes a clear stand either for deletion or against deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close -Accept outcome. - We have just had two AFD discussions on this, closed as "no consensus" on 9 May and 6 June. If the closing admin had considered that a further discussion was useful he (or she) would have relisted it. The question is ultimately whether the massacre happened. We have sources cited; how reliable they are I am not qualified to say; and I suspect that no one but an expert in Balkan history is qualified to judge. The appropriate course is thus to keep the article but heavily tagged as "disputed". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I was the closing admin in both cases, and I consider a further discussion (this time without Balkans-associated users) useful; this is why I have indeed relisted the article at AfD. Sandstein 21:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of users being banned from discussions based on ethnic origin. Isn't that technically racist? Note that is very different from banning users based on actual behavior. Having looked over the past two AfDs, I sympathize with Sandstein, but I think this AfD should be speedily closed because it sets a dangerous precedent.VR _talk 06:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, I've amended the sanction because of these concerns. Sandstein 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the modification. I would also urge you to cancel out: "[#2] if they have made recent substantive edits to any page related to the Balkans", and only leave the following condition: "[#3] if they were ever sanctioned for editing about the Balkans". While neither #2 nor #3 is racist, #2 penalizes all users including those who have constructively edited wikipedia.VR _talk 07:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, Sandstein, you said,

I know that this may make it more difficult to evaluate sources in languages from the Balkans, but I expect that a notable historical event, if it is notable, will be covered in English-language sources as well.

But WP:Notability says,

Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.

VR _talk 07:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.