Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batajnica mass graves

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. → Call me Hahc21 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batajnica mass graves[edit]

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

This page clocks in at just 1,925 bytes. I see no evidence that it merits its own Wikipedia article when it can easily fit into a section of War crimes in the Kosovo War#Cover-up or, indeed, Batajnica—propose to either delete outright or merge with one or both of those two articles. 23 editor (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. I can't fathom how any good-faith editor would think it's a good idea to delete a stub for being a mere 2kb, only an hour after it was started. 23 editor, you know that this topic is covered by multiple reliable sources; why don't you add some sourced content instead? bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you are willing to create an article for every single mass grave from the Yugoslav Wars—the several hundred in Srebrenica, the half-dozen in Gospić, Sarajevo, etc? Go ahead. I fail to see how any one mass grave is notable in of itself and out of the context of the crime which it was meant to conceal. As things stand, this article is an attack page that can easily be merged into one or both of the above-mentioned articles. 23 editor (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "other stuff" exists or not, or will exist or not, is irrelevant to whether or not this page should or should not be kept. Accusatons of creating an "attack page" should be made carefully. And suggesting merger is not what AfD is for - that's what the article talk page is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bobrayner, and strongly caution 23 editor against nominating articles on such topics for deletion, while at the same time displaying the kind of the barnstars and user boxes currently on his user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? 23 editor (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means that while we're supposed to assume good faith, when those are combined with the lightning-fast nomination for deletion of this subject it makes AGFing why this was done...difficult. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? 23 editor (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent RS refs. Clearly notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's keeping those decent RS refs from being displayed at Batajnica or War crimes in the Kosovo War? They already clearly are . 23 editor (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is reminded that article size is not a reason for deletion, and that AfD is not for cleanup. Nominating an article, even by an experienced editor, for deletion barely an hour after creation is generally considered bad form as well; there is no deadline. As for the topic at hand, there appears to be sufficient references to establish that WP:GNG is passed; whether or not this should be a standalone article or merged is outside the remit of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Obviously notable topic covered with multiple reliable sources. I propose to nominator to withdraw their nomination and apologize to creator of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize? I have serious reason to question the integrity of this article and am being Wikihounded (why is Pigsonthewing stalking my nominations?; he's been editing for 10 years and he should know better) and you think I should apologize? No one commenting here has proven that this article needs to exist. 23 editor (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you mention stalking. Clearly, you were just going through my contributions and looking for something to revert or delete (it's not the first time). That is stalking. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic with significant media coverage. IJA (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-covered topic in reliable International sources such as The Guardian. I don't understand the continued discussion. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After carefully reading both this article and War crimes in the Kosovo War#Cover-up as proposed by the nominator I gave it a good thinking. I personaly dont care if an article is a stubb. For me a stubb is just a A class article in the making. What I fail to see here is there is nothing new basicly in the article itself thats not already covered by the other one in the Cover up section except of more refs. Those refs could be easily moved to the Cover up section if needed. This stub itself, knowing alot about the war times myself, I can not see what so much more there can be added into the article and by that I dont see what is the main purpose of the article. Why really waste time on two pages when basicly everything is already covered by the page where most people would go to first if they want to know more about the topic. There are several graves from the war and some more who are not known and almoust all who are already known are well covered when it comes to finding refs and notability but still make a page for each of them will not add anything more than there already is on the Cover up page. I would rather that page to be expanded with more news if it ever comes sence as I said that is the first page people will look at if interested in the subject and not all those smaller pages.Stepojevac (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2014 (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.