Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Smoluća

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The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace. I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. [1][2][3] [4] Dege31 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!” Well, look at the sources i put on the article. There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed. Orhov (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orhov:, I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD. However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion. You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures. The other reference is a YouTube video. I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article. As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information. Orhov (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dege31. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book reference pointed out by Dege31 is more convincing than the others. However, still not sure it would meet guidelines. But, if someone is will to update per WP:HEY I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw - At this point I do not have an opinion on notability but can say that the references do verify the content. Would ask to withdraw the nomination without prejudice. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (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.