Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzmi

Buzmi

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources! Even can delete per WP:EVERYTHING Safe My Edit (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pages 244-246 of this book are about this festival. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this paper confirms that this festival involves much eating and drinking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]