Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cel Shabani

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) sst✈ 14:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cel Shabani

(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 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 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) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, "Cel Shaban", "Cel Shabani" and "Cel Gjonbalaj" 0 hits on Gbooks. I would suggest that a list of Kachaks be created where these articles failing notability be summarized into.--Zoupan 18:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My bad, "Çel Shabani" 5 hits.--Zoupan 19:24, 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) 19:21, 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 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets gng, so the creation by sock is just rationale seems to be a revenge vendetta rather than a rational argument for deletion Jacona (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Little more than a stub, but adequate sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 25 February 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.