Content deleted Content added
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) Strike it out. Undid revision 1049145748 by TheRollBoss001 (talk) Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
** SIGCOV need to be exhibited. Frankopan spends less than half of a line. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
** SIGCOV need to be exhibited. Frankopan spends less than half of a line. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The nomination makes no sense. [[WP:GNG]] is easily established with following sources: |
*'''Keep''' The nomination makes no sense. [[WP:GNG]] is easily established with following sources: |
||
*{{cite book|title=The Slavonic Year-book: American series, Volu\mes 1-2|pages=177 - 182|quote="Ragusan trade was the Turkish expedition to India 1537–1538 . This expedition was a Ragusan affair in the same sense..."|publisher=The Slavonic Year-Book|year=1963}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=English Inland Trade|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zm1hCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA75|author=Michael Hicks}} |
|||
*{{cite book|title=Mediterraneo e Oceano Indiano : Atti del sesto Colloquio internazionale di storia marittima, tenuto a Venezia dal 20 al 29 settembre 1962|page=189|publisher = LS Olschki|year=1971|author=Manlio Cortelazzo|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dVYjAQAAMAAJ}} |
|||
:Theres more than just these.[[User:TheRollBoss001|TheRollBoss001]] ([[User talk:TheRollBoss001|talk]]) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
:Theres more than just these.[[User:TheRollBoss001|TheRollBoss001]] ([[User talk:TheRollBoss001|talk]]) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Hicks meeting GNG is wow - what is the line, you are going to add from him? I cannot access the last, yet. |
::Hicks meeting GNG is wow - what is the line, you are going to add from him? I cannot access the last, yet. |
Revision as of 04:15, 10 October 2021
Ragusan trade with India
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ragusan trade with India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG is not met. Ample pseudohistory - see this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Most of us can't read your Italian link, sorry, you should instead provide some English citations from it, and explain why it's a reliable source. In general, that Ragusans travelled to India should not be pseudohistory, it's easy to find book mentions, e.g. "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II: Volume I" by Fernand Braudel 'Ragusans in the sixteenth century travelled to ... sometimes to India, often to England, and in at least one case to Peru'. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Non-English sources are not forbidden or even, discouraged. That being said, consult footnote 329 at Lach, Donald F.; Kley, Edwin J. Van (1993). "Empire and Trade". Asia in the Making of Europe. Vol. III: A Century of Advance - Book 1: Trade, Missions, Literature. University of Chicago Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780226467535. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I will provide a short summary; give me a day. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep and rename to São Braz: This would benefit from a rename to the colony itself, rather than the generic term. A number of sources describe the colony in detail ([1] [2] [3] [4] (I can't access the latter source, but the google preview shows it talks about it. [5])). The colony itself would pass WP:GEOLAND. Also @nominator, what are you referring to with the book you linked? Curbon7 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Comment: I just read the ANI related to this page. Striking my comments, I want no part in this. Curbon7 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think such a title would be better compared to the current WP:NDESC title, especially when we literally have the article currently quoting a historian saying there's no conclusive proof of a colony there. We know the church was named after St. Blaise, but not much about the trading post / potential colony per se. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- BTW that journal article is from 1963, while the source I mention, that is in the article, is from 2018. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, Croatia Week (and TOI, declared to be of dubious reliability at WP:RSP) are definitely reliable sources to document economic history in a controversial domain. Himal Southasian is a decent magazine (employs academics as editors) but have you read it? This article can be redirected to Gandaulim at best. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Potential keep -- I see nothing incredible in the content. Of course I do not have the book and my Italian is minimal. The article needs a lot more citations, but the test is verifiable, not verified. I do not think it is implying a colony in terms of foreign settlers in India, more likely a community of merchants cooperating together. This is how overseas trade often worked. Accordingly I doubt this is pseudo-history. Even if it was, the fact that a view has been put forward and later debunked may be sufficient to justify a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Deserves nothing more than a paragraph at Gandaulim. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few hundred books and a few thousand journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? I think that is the answer to this AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure if this is better - this now seems like the modern-day village article is being WP:COATRACK'ed with a bunch of information about a historical story that may well have a different context (this reminds me of having to clean up talking about Roman times in Zagreb instead of in Andautonia). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion; and as others have pointed out sources do exist which verify the content. I think there are enough sources to pass GNG based on those in the article and those presented above by Curbon7. Currently, discussion is centering around the need for this topic to exist as a stand alone article or whether it should be merged somewhere else. AFD isn't really the right venue for determining a merge where an article's deletion is not necessary. As such, I suggest closing this AFD as keep and discussing merge options on the article's talk page before making a formal merge proposal at the proper venue.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas? The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay. If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate,
Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few thousand books and tens of thousands of journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject?
TrangaBellam (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas? The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay. If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate,
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the disputed factual accuracy of this, I would be loathe to close as no consensus, unless there truly is no alternative. Is there any appropriately suitable redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given the disputed factual accuracy of this, I would be loathe to close as no consensus, unless there truly is no alternative. Is there any appropriately suitable redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This does appear to be pseudohistory, and if it is based on a vague historical accuracy, that does not come through in the article text. The current article appears to by WP:COATRACKing on the idea of trade between Ragusa and India, which may be notable, with a complete focus on trying to claim there was a Ragusan colony. Whatever the reliability of the Himal/Tomas source, it is being misrepresented in this article, which paints as close to a certainty what the Himal/Tomas source treats as a curious historical myth of unsure accuracy. The second source seems to similarly treat it as hearsay. There might possibly be GNG for the actual topic of Ragusan trade with India (which this article doesn't really look into), or for the myth of the colony, but at the moment this is neither of these. CMD (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis, I agree with you. I have covered the episode at this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion without commenting on redirecting or merging. A Ragusan trading colony at Goa is mentioned in Peter Frankopan's Silk Roads and Brill's Handbook of Hinduism in Europe. If this is "pseudohistory", it is the kind that had gone mainstream in top-shelf sources. Given that the nom has created a competing section on the topic in a different article, this is a content dispute and deletion does not seem appropriate. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And these sources treat it as a 48km separate territory with a capital and official status that was carved out of Portuguese Goa and then returned to it? The issue here is not the concept (albeit a different concept to the article title), it is the article. Deletion is an appropriate and suggested option for a WP:POVFORK. CMD (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- SIGCOV need to be exhibited. Frankopan spends less than half of a line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination makes no sense. WP:GNG is easily established with following sources:
- The Slavonic Year-book: American series, Volu\mes 1-2. The Slavonic Year-Book. 1963. pp. 177–182.
Ragusan trade was the Turkish expedition to India 1537–1538 . This expedition was a Ragusan affair in the same sense...
- Michael Hicks. English Inland Trade.
- Manlio Cortelazzo (1971). Mediterraneo e Oceano Indiano : Atti del sesto Colloquio internazionale di storia marittima, tenuto a Venezia dal 20 al 29 settembre 1962. LS Olschki. p. 189.
- Theres more than just these.TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hicks meeting GNG is wow - what is the line, you are going to add from him? I cannot access the last, yet.
- If you can write anything more than what stands at this section, take the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)