Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Suakin (1541)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. A decision to rename the page can take place in the article's talk page.

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 12:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Suakin (1541)

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

Battle of Suakin (1541) (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)

The reason I have initiated a deletion discussion for this specific page is

WP:OR
.

Firstly the name of the page is misleading, this event is described in all in page references as a sacking and not an actual battle, therefore it is original research to refer to this event as a battle since no source refers to it as such.

Moreover, the statement of Portuguese victory in the infobox is unsourced, not only that but there was not any conflict or battle between the Portuguese and the Ottomans whatsoever during this event, in fact sources state that the city was deserted during the sacking so describing this as a “battle” which was a “Portuguese victory” between the Ottomans (who were not present) is most certainly

WP:OR
.

  • “The Portuguese also later attacked Suakin , in 1541 , when , as Jayne notes , they “ found the city deserted , and burnt it with all the ships in the roadstead ; there was little else for them to do , except to come to blows over the vast quantities of loot they acquired”[1]
  • “On February 20th Estavâo da Gama, leaving the large vessels under Manuel da Gama to await his return, started for Suakin. When D. Christovão da Gama with the advanced guard reached there on Feb. 22nd, he surrounded the island, but found the town already deserted. Suakin struck the Portuguese by its size and apparent prosperity.“[2]

Kabz15 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jayne, Kingsley Garland. Vasco Da Gama and His Successors, 1460-1580. United Kingdom: Methuen & Company, Limited, 1910.
  2. ^ Whiteway, R. S.. Rise of Portuguese Power in India. India: Asian Educational Services, 1995.
  • Keep. Clearly inappropriate nomination.
A) It's not original research because all the sources the article is based on are exclusively secondary or tertiary, such as the Portuguese navy specialist Saturnino Monteiro, Denvers, Bloss, and Couto.
B) A battle is clearly described in the article and sourced (Relevant paragraph: desembarcou na terra firme hum dia de madrugada, com mil homens repartidos em duas batalhas, huma deo a D. Christóvão, que havia de levar a vanguarda, e o Governador ficou com a outra em guarda da bandeira de Christo. E marchando apressados pera chegarem ao arraial antes de amanhecer, como fizeram, D. Christovão o commetteo com grande determinação, e o entrou com morte e damno de muitos Mouros = "he landed on the mainland one day by dawn, with a thousand men divided in two squadrons, one he gave to D. Cristóvão, who would take the lead, and the Governor led the other guarding the flag of Christ. And marching hurriedly to reach the camp before dawn, as they did, D. Cristóvão committed with great determination, and breached in with the death and damage of many moslems")
C) The user seems to have a problem with the infobox saying "Portuguese victory" but doesn't elaborate on what the alternative should be and why, and has already previously engaged in disruptive editing by simply removing the "result" section from similar articles as this one [1]. Wareno (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D) This seems to be a case of
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
  • Keep on purely procedural grounds, this appears to be a retaliatory nomination for Wareno's merge here.Onel5969 TT me 14:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entirely invalid reason for deletion. Even if the title is inappropriate (and I'm not conceding that it is) that is an easily fixable problem. SpinningSpark 00:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blatant retaliation IMO, plus invalid argument. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only dropping in to point out that Wareno likes merging articles that don't say Portuguese victory in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to point out any of those articles that is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant their own article and not astoudingly trivial, go right ahead and be my guest. Wareno (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything astoudingly trivial about
      Attack on Mocha. It cites (correctly) a modern secondary source, which in turn cites the Décadas de Asia VII, pt 2, bk VI, ch 7 and bk VII, ch 6. How does this differ from the Suakin article, which relies on the Décadas and two pages from an 1894 source? Srnec (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I don't want to discuss it, but the article "Attack on Mocha" was obviously about more than just the attack on Mocha strictu sensu. It was about a campaign. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Attack on Mocha" was the campaign. Don't want to discuss it, don't do so. Wareno (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AFD is not for cleanup. The article can be fixed or renamed if need be. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep -- no opinion on title, but no proper rationale for deletion has been enunciated, and the sources appear to be reliable. Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since "only dropping in to point out" the behaviour of the users involved in this matter seems to be fine, I'd just like to "drop in and point out" that the user Kabz15 has now proceeded to un-merge all the stub articles that more users had already agreed were better off exclusively contained in their target pages (their content was left in their targets). [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Wareno (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to
    WP:RS. I see no reason why it should be deleted. It is misnamed, as there does not seem to have been any battle. "attack on ..." or "Sack of ..." would also be possibilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Just because the title may be misleading doesn't mean we have to delete it. We can just change the name. TomMasterRealTALK 02:55, 8 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Suakin_(1541)&oldid=1132341552"