Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of Ceraja and Sllatina

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. There is a unanimous consent to delete here. No reason to prolong the discussion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Battles of Ceraja and Sllatina

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Battles of Ceraja and Sllatina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing to state that this meets notability. Both references used aren't RS. ballikombetar.info is a website dedicated to the Balli Kombetar, a Nazi collaborationist movement during WWII and balkanacedmia.com seems to be a blog. Griboski (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The article is most definitely not table. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like an AI-generated article created by a sock, also poorly sourced with two unreliable websites, and little notability Piccco (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

delete. non-notable. google search gives NO sources. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Not Notable. Poorly sourced. Rubik's Cube 3x3 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The quality of article requires more high quality references. Additionally the body of the article lacks encyclopedic tone. If the author resubmits both the tone, quality of language and references will need to be improved. Additionally, could consider merging with another article to cover the topic--Trex32 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The IC isn't a blocked sock, let alone that the page was created in violation of a block. However, it needs some additional work to revamp the whole article from scratch, as it's clearly generated by an LLM. Inarguably, TNT applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

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.