Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajrak of Oštrozub

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SoWhy 07:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bajrak of Oštrozub

[edit]
Bajrak of Oštrozub (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)

Does not meet their respective notability criteria Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to lack of sources. Unless this is spelled differently - I wasn't able to find sources (non-English as well) that refer to this Bajrak as a Bajrak. A Bajrak might be notable, but it would have to be sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional explanation - In response to Chris troutman's question left on my talkpage regarding this AfD (diff) and on their talkpage (diff) I replied (diff) stating the following:
    • I did follow WP:BEFORE.
      • The article has been already PRODed but another editor opposed speedy deletion stating "...some more references (preferably in English) would be a very good idea, but article should not be deleted without discussion".
      • I also checked interlanguage links and the only link is zero sources Albanian wiki article of one sentence about generic term of bajrak which already has an article on en.wiki.
      • I also searched for sources and found out that the topic in question has zero hits at GBS and 17 hits on simple Google search, all of them being mirrors of this wikipedia article. Albanian language version of name has two GBS hits, which are both passing mentions.
      • I checked the article talkpage and noticed that an editor already expressed their concerns about the notability of this topic and that their concerns have not been addressed. Having in mind that another editor has already prodded it, it made sense to initiate AfD.
    • The topic of this article is not about a populated place which is presumably notable by WP:NGEO. It is about smallest Ottoman administrative unit consisting of several villages within Ottoman borderland. I myself created numerous articles about Ottoman Sanjaks. I think nobody created more articles about sanjaks than me. Unfortunately, individual bajraks obviously do not have significant coverage in RS.
    • To conclude: this is a matter of WP:GNG. No significant coverage - no suitability for a standalone article.
    • I also presented more detailed explanation about what were bajraks and how Bajrak of Oštrozub ≠ Village of Oštrozub and of course Ostrozub (diff)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a recognized territorial administrative unit it comes under WP:GEOLAND. A bajrak (from ensign or flag) compares with Bandon (Byzantine Empire), q.v. Within the Bajrak of Oštrozub are the mountain range, Ostrozub, and the Ostrožupska plain. Apparently in Albanian "Oštrozub" is "Astrazub". --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bejnar In this diff I think I explained that bajraks (which existed only in the Ottoman borderland - disputed territories which are not fully under Ottoman administrative and effective control) were not legaly recognized territorial administrative unit and about the real nature of bajraks and why .... until 19th century no country in history has ever fully included this regions within its administrative system and how the Ottoman attept to do so contributed to the collapse of four great empires at the beginning of the 20th century.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think GEOLAND applies to historical sub sub divisions that no longer exist. As I read it, it appliez to current divisions including abandoned locations. If it does apply to all historical sub-sub-divisions, then we could have hundreds of sub-province listings going back thousands of years for some locales. Even during the Ottoman period itself Sanjaks changed quite a bit, and I would assume Barjaks even more.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find such a limitation at GEOLAND. However, I am not advocating an article for every bajrak, or even every sanjak. I am advocating for this one, because it is referenced and specifically because of its autonomy. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 3 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bajrak_of_Oštrozub&oldid=1078079142"