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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shkurte Sherbeti[edit]

Shkurte Sherbeti (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)

Article created by blocked sock-master, article is questionable and highly POV, and it should be deleted Axiomus (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article created by a Sockmaster is not a valid reason for deletion. Claiming an article is POV is also not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a case of WP:IDL. This is a valid notable article which is referenced appropriately. IJA (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- as per rationale given by IJA above. --Mondiad (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still fails notability? 0 hits on Gbooks. The refs used in the article are unrealiable, as per RS-board. Merge content into List of Kachaks if you insist.--Zoupan 19:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How are the references unreliable? Are the published books which are used as references unreliable? If so please explain how. 0 google books searches means no books on google books, not 0 books on the topic. IJA (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com were deemed unreliable, as per other nationalistic sites. Dedushaj is obviously unreliable.--Zoupan 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Yeah it's pretty stupid to nominate every single article created by AH..., Anyway I'm not seeing any beneficial advantages to deleting the article .... Plus it meets GNG anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete. Absolutely no notability: 6 hits for "Shkurte Sherbeti" -wikipedia on Google! And honestly, IJA and Mondiad, did you look at the references? None of them are published books. The two first are from malsia.eu and albaniapress.com. They are "openly Albanian nationalist" sources, not according to me, but according to User:Albanian Historian (the indef-banned editor who created this article), see here. The third reference? Please compare it with the first one. They are the same. Davey2010, please explain how this is meets GNG. 6 Google hits? I have more than 100, and I can assure you that I am not notable. --T*U (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete -- Having voted keep on a series of these AFDs on Albanian (or Kosovar) patriots, this is the one is the first where I have doubts. She seems to have fought to protect her village from Montenegrin soldiers, but without being a commander or particularly distinguished, except that fighters are usually men. This seems to have led to a statue being erected in the village. People who are notable locally are not necessarily WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability per T*U's above analysis. 23 editor (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while its creator's status is not a valid reason for deletion, the fact that this person doesn't meet WP:GNG is. Simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if some knowledgeable editor should someday write/source a well-supported article. This one fails GNG standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2016 (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.