Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Banja Koviljača

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banja Koviljača[edit]

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

No sources, notability unestablished. A Google Books search [1] failed to identify any sources whatsoever for this "Battle". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are sources on Serbian language that mentions this event. One of them is work of Dedijer (Dedijer, Vladimir (1990). From April 6, 1941, to November 27, 1942. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10091-0.) who is extensively used in articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is what is required. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its better to give a chance to new editor who created this article to present sources? I quickly found one Serbian language source (Ristanović, Slobodan V. (2011). U ime slobode i pravde našeg naroda: ustanak protiv fašističkog okupatora 1941. Pilastro. ISBN 978-86-915041-0-6.) which served as basis for text in Večernje Novosti (link and link). The former discuss this event in detail. The topic of this article is re-capture of German-occupied town performed by the resistance forces at the beginning of September 1941 when almost all Europe was German-occupied. If there are sources which proves this really happened this is certainly a very notable topic, don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are reports of Allied sources that present information about this event:
The Četniks: a survey of Četnik activity in Yugoslavia, April 1941-July 1944. G-2 (pb), A.f.h.q. 1944. p. 9. The Chetniks under Miseta captured Loznica on 31 August and the mining town of Zajača on the next day. Banja Koviljaca also fell to them, and Racic even managed to penetrate into Sabac without succeeding in establishing control over that town
Erpenbeck, Dirk-Gerd (1976). Serbien 1941 [i.e. neunzehnhunderteinundvierzig]: deutsche Militärverwaltung und serbischer Widerstand. Biblio Verlag. p. 101. ISBN 978-3-7648-1056-6. Am 1.9. wurden Teile eines Jagdkommandos ostwärts Losnica aufgerieben, der Rest bei Koviljaca eingeschlossen. Ebenso ging das Werk Stolica verloren und der Angriff gegen Krupanj nunmehr direkt eingeleitet. Der Versuch der--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Komitet, Savez Komunista Jugoslavije. Centralni; Tito, Josip Broz (1948). Political Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia: Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY.. There are tons of communist sources that emphasize this towns were captured during uprising. Some of them say Chetniks did it with Partisan units on the way to help them, some say that small Partisan help was provided to Chetniks, while the least neutral emphasize that only Partisans "liberated" those towns.
on the opposite side from communist sources are tons of sources of Chetniks who emphasize they alone captured all towns of West Serbia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will be difficult, because despite gentle suggestions, obvious indications of lack of consensus, and clear warnings to comply with WP policies, the editor that created the two articles I have AfD'd has in fact been blocked. The G2 (intelligence branch) document is probably a primary document BTW. The topic is notable if WP policy considers it notable, asking rhetorical questions about whether I personally consider it notable is entirely irrelevant. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor who created this article has been blocked for only 24 hours. His conduct is not a valid argument for deletion. My question was not rhetorical.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It remains to be seen whether the supposedly new editor is able to get the message. Initial indications aren't good. Your question surely must have been rhetorical, unless you believe my views on whether this "battle" is notable or not is actually relevant to this discussion. They aren't, so your question clearly is rhetorical, or you don't understand the guideline. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is certainly important. Based on my explanation I thought you would ~~redraw~~ withdraw your nomination. Will you please consider ~~redrawing~~ withdrawing of your nomination and allow new editor and other interested editors to present sources which clarify that this event is notable?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean withdraw? Redraw means to physically draw something again. Your "explanation" currently consists of Dedijer (possibly fair enough, but needing reliable corroboration), two citations from what is pretty clearly a primary source, and one from what appears to be a children's textbook publisher. I think I'll let the nomination stand and see where this goes, frankly. Given the behaviour of the editor in question, I think the questionable neutrality of their approach means all their work since registering should be closely examined to ensure no hoaxes are being pulled on WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant withdraw. Thank you for your reply. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; weak sourcing (including overreliance on primary sources) and neutrality problems. Get rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources on this event. I have added valid references to this page and intend to continue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know if you manage to bring it up to wikipedia standards. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced notable event. The circumstances have changed since the article's nomination. It is now upto Wikipedia's standards. IJA (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been updated with references, and it's good enough to stay and be worked on further. - Anonimski (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent reference updates put it over the line.Zvonko (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn by nominator - Despite some issues with primary, non-third party and potentially unreliable sources, I believe there is now sufficient reliably sourced coverage to justify the existence of the article. It still has very significant issues in a range of areas, but the notability issue has been put to rest now IMO. Closing admin can close as "keep" as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:18, 24 January 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.