Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzmi

Buzmi

Buzmi (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)

I'm unable to find any sources that determines that this is/was even a real thing. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 06:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Google Books shows traces of "Buzmi Bujar" in Albanian, German and French sources. A Google Translate of the description in this 2010 Telegrafi item also seems broadly in line with the article text. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked by the nomination, as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Article has no sources! Even can delete per WP:EVERYTHING Safe My Edit (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their current citation in the article. I would prefer not to add sources in languages that I don't read fluently without spending a lot more time on checking than I have available now, because I might get something wrong, but their existence is not in doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - no references, let alone authoritative references, are provided. Nothing supports notability or even factuality.--Rpclod (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, for starters, here's a 9-page scholarly paper about this precise topic published by the Kunstkamera. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• And I see that this paper confirms that this a ceremony involving a log, and relates it to similar festivals in Serbia and Croatia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Pages 244-246 of this book are about this festival. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• this paper confirms that this festival involves much eating and drinking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• this paper links this festival to others in Greece, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Italy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me. Expand the article. Add the references. You apparently have a passion for the subject. Go for it.--Rpclod (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I explained above I prefer to leave that to editors with more fluency in Russian and Spanish than I have. I know those languages well enough to see that the sources have significant coverage of the subject (I even have an A level in Russian, but that was over 40 years ago), but not well enough to be sure of accurately reflecting what those sources say in our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep ethnographic articles about folk traditions in Balkan countries are valuable often have sourcing issues in English, and the fact that this one is unsourced is not great, but I see plenty of sources higher up in the discussion. I highly doubt this is a hoax. This page needs a comprehensive cleanup and expansion with sources, not deletion.--Calthinus (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I'm a heathen who speaks non-English languages only to the extent of a handful of tourist phrases (except German, where I can stretch it to 2 handfuls). So, I'm relying on the good faith of those commenting above to accurately reflect the situation. While actually utilising them to expand the article is proving linguistically problematic, there is a decent amount of sources showing lasting coverage. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)