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 Draftify as there is an active desire to address the WP:V issues. Draftifying as this as there does not appear to be a consensus on the best title. For the move to whichever title it eventually lands at, feel free to ping me if that requires admin action but should be fine editorially. StarMississippi02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead of the GA Tvrtko I of Bosnia says After bitter fighting, from 1385 to 1390, Tvrtko succeeded in conquering large parts of Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper. The article has much more. As of now, the one line stub is inferior to the Trvtko I article, but you cannot generally treat conflicts in an article devoted to one side. So I think the article should probably stay. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you mention it, 1385 and 1387 are clearly different, so there's a significant problem here from the get-go; in turn, when looking for mentions of 1385 in that reportedly good article, I found little to corroborate that part of the lead, no mention of a war with Hungary other than a 1363 one, yet also a random WP:EGG link to an unrelated battle that year. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: What do you think about the title? I don't know much about 1300's geography but I do know Hungary existed then. Is "Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper" Hungarian? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that the main opponent related to the Kingdom of Hungary that Tvrtko seems to had encountered were the Dalmatian city-states. These were not terribly well integrated with their hinterland and had habitually shifted allegiances between the Eastern Roman Empire, Hungary, and Venice at the time. So it seems like it's not like there was a coherent army of Hungary and battles between them and the Bosnian army, which is what the average reader will expect from an article about a medieval war. At least we don't have this documented properly, that is. --Joy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure the events have necessarily been so clearly defined elsewhere. The timeline of this source on page xxix lumps these events into a period of military conflicts between 1385-1390 for example. Dubrovnik: A History essentially places the events as occurring during an on-going civil war in Hungary (of which we currently have no article, and that Tvrtko was simply able to use the chaotic events to break away from Hungarian control.) Placed in that light, the events might be better covered on a broader picture of that civil war. This detailed account doesn't use such clearly defined terms, and looks at the events as spanning across a longer time frame (extending back to military conflict in 1384); although I am uncertain about the reliability of the publisher. This source, like many, discuss the events in context to the Battle of Kosovo. This older source refers to the wars of 1385 and 1390; showing a separation [1]. Clearly the events being discussed here should be covered in some fashion. I don't think the article as titled matches the historicity of the published literature on those events across a wider range of sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially WP:OR. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. I would consider these events part of a bigger Hungarian Civil War as described in Dubrovnik: A History (see my comment above for ref url) which began after the death of Louis I of Hungary in 1382. Essentially his death created a power vacuum as he had no male heir which led to a great deal of political instability and bloody series of military offenses involving multiple political opponents that included several different factions across the Kingdom of Hungary. Chief among these were Mary, Queen of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg, Charles III of Naples, and Tvrtko I of Bosnia. When these events began Bosnia didn't even exist, and when Tvrtko became King in 1387 it was a result of this wider civil war, and Tvrtko's success of asserting independence during that war. The succeeding military campaigns in Dalmatia were a continuation of the rebellion that created the Kingdom of Bosnia, and, according to Dubrovnik: A History, these military events led by Tvrtko were done so under the support of Charles III of Naples (and after his death Ladislaus of Naples) who benefited from them in his power stuggle against Sigismund of Luxembourg and Mary, Queen of Hungary. In other words, it's all tied up together into a bigger power conflict in a Hungarian Civil War over Hungarian succession due to opposition to a woman sitting on the throne. Some of this is covered in Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)#New consolidation (1382–1437). We really could use an article on the broader civil war in Hungary of which the creation of Bosnia and the succeeding military incursions into Dubrovnik are a part. That is where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is the best option. The title itself is OR and should not remain as even a REDIRECT because there is no such thing as the "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". We could draftify it under a new title about the Hungarian Civil War of that era; although it would be hard to define an exact end to that event. Charles III of Naples became king but was then assassinated by agents of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Ladislaus of Naples then got involved in events. Mary was in a tenuous spot until she married Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Probably their marriage would be the definitive end to the conflict because it filled the power vacuum, although one could argue the war ended when Mary was restored to power after Charles III was killed. However, the Court of Naples and Tvrtko continued to test and instigate conflict even after they married... so... The sources would obviously determine the scope. It would require research and time to determine that, hence why starting an article in draft space under a new title would be the only possible ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense to cover this as a section in a broader article about the crisis in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. This reminds me a bit of Candian War#War in Dalmatia, where we have a secondary theatre of operations of a large war, which is perfectly notable in its own right, covered by reliable sources and actually had a long-term impact on those regions, but is covered only in the larger context right now. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably makes sense to collect information for this new article not only from here, but from our other articles, we have a lot of this scattered in the articles about Mary, Charles, Elizabeth, Tvrtko, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, Nikola Gorjanski, John of Palisna, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy What do you think we should title this? Dubrovnik: A History refers to these events in a chapter subheading as the "Hungarian Civil War". I think that is a reasonable title but it will need a disambiguation page as there are already two articles that are at the dab page Hungarian Civil War. Perhaps Hungarian Civil War (began 1382)? As I said tacking on an ending date is hard here, because it really depends on the point of view of the historian.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose deletion and I strongly oppose a merger. The existing article can be expanded and re-titled if its scope broadens. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. This is reading too much into the title. Wars often contain smaller wars, so the fact that these military actions were not isolated doesn't matter. Just look at the contemporary Hundred Years' War and its sub-wars. an article on the broader civil war in Hungary ... is where this content belongs. So the content belongs at an article that doesn't exist. This is a reason to keep this article and work on it. The title itself is OR. Not necessarily a problem per WP:NDESC, although "war" should not be upper case. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec There are no sources (zero, including the ones you are using), that use the title "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". Your article is blatant WP:Original synthesis. If you want to write like that, submit an article to a history journal. Wikipedia doesn't accept original historical analysis.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conflict is related to the civil war in Hungary following the death of Louis I (1382). Sigismund fought against the rebellious Horvat family and John of Palisna, former supporters of Charles III of Naples. After Sigismund drove them out from Syrmia, they fled to Bosnia, where their cause was supported by Tvrtko. Their rebellion lasted until 1394. Some sources (in Hungarian): [2], [3], [4], [5], Mályusz Elemér: Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon 1387–1437, Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norden1990 Is the creation of the Kingdom of Bosnia not considered part of the civil war then? 1384 seems to be a strange cut off point. That's before the ascension of Charles III of Naples in 1385 and the creation of Bosnia in 1387, events which would seem to be critical to the power struggle of that civil war. (wasn't Bosnia's assertion of its own kingdom, and breaking off from the Kingdom of Hungary by definition a secession achieved through civil war?) Dubrovnik: A History seems to claim as much because it lumps the incursions by Tvrtko into Dubrovnik in 1387 under the Hungarian Civil War subsection. This is what I meant by an unclear cut off point in the civil war's timeline. It really depends on the historian. If we are going to write an article on the Hungarian Civil War (1382-1384) that doesn't leave room for the contents of this article unless we place it in some sort of aftermath subsection of that civil war page. All of this to say, what do we call the article(s) and what is(are) their scope? Does this need to be a series of articles? Where do the events described here fall within the article/articles? These questions might be best addressed in draft space rather than at an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, I did not mention the date 1384, but 1394. In the latter year, the Horvat rebellion (see John Horvat and Paul Horvat, then partisans of Ladislaus of Naples) was finally crushed. So, this Hungarian civil war lasted from 1382 to 1394, but after 1387 it no longer took place in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft at Draft:Hungarian Civil War (1382–1394) per input from Norden1990. No redirect should remain. I struck my earlier vote above. @ Norden1990 and Joy, do you two mind assisting with writing this draft? Srnec you are of course welcome to aid in writing the draft as well. I'll pitch in if nobody else is willing, but it's not my area of expertise. Many hands make light work. 4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not about the civil war, but about a military conflict within the civil war, so there is no reason to delete it. I am not sure that the title is fully in line with WP:NAME, but it is another issue and Hungarian Civil War would not be in line with our policies either. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to do somehing here is that it's an incoherent stub that oversimplifies things from the title onwards. If we're claiming that there was something named a "Bosnian-Hungarian war" and it's hard to identify what the Hungarian side here is because they're actually embroiled in a civil war at the same time, this is a disservice to our readers from the get-go. If we actually reference historians saying these events are named that way, that's fine - but as it is now, we're not doing that. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current version is not up to the level of being an article. The single line of the article floats in the ether without any context. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @ Joy, Norden1990, and North8000 what do you all think about the move to draft proposal? I'm the only one who has put in a formal vote for it, and if this were to close now it probably would close as no consensus or keep because there isn't clear support for any action at the moment, with a slight majority vote in keeping the article. This is largely because people are commenting without endorsing a particular action. Please WP:BEBOLD and come out with a clear opinion for the closing admin.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion; my nomination was just me trying to do my NPP job properly. But my opinion is delete. It looks like the title is defective, and the title defines the subject of the article, so we really don't even have a subject. And the content consists of two sentences. One sentence (which appears to be incorrect) which defines the putative topic and the other sentence is defining where a particular event is in the timeline of the non-exsistent subject. So there's really nothing to save. But I'm just offering a framework that might help sort this out....there are participants here that know this topic a zillion times better than I do and so their input is very important. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:STUB: A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Seems like a stub to me. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The single line mentions only one segment of the war, while there were also military operations in the territory of Bosnia and Slavonia, and all of this, additionally, is actually a secondary theater of a civil war situation in Hungary. It is as if there was no article about a battle, only about one phase of it, which was won by, say, B, while the outcome of the battle ended with A's victory. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is going into the weeds with talk of dates of rebellions and national borderlines when AFDs typically focus on issues of notability and sourcing that establishes that notability. Other issues over who did what to whom and why are content decisions that can be worked out if this article is Kept. But we need some definitive verdicts on what should happen. I have a bias towards ATD in discussions like this but if a consensus forms to delete, that's what will happen. I guess I'm just surprised that the nominator doesn't have an opinion on this. Why did it come to AFD if you weren't seeking deletion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Liz I believe you made an error in your relist comment about what the nominator said. The nominator has been consistent in their desire to delete the article. The ambivalence expressed was about my move to draft proposal after I pinged them to comment on it. Additionally, the issue over facts is relevant because at the heart of the issue is WP:No Original Research. There are zero sources that use the term “ Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)” and doing so here is presenting an original interpretation of historical events. We should cover these events because they are notable but not from a SYNTH framework of questionable historicity. In other words, the conversation hasn’t been derailed, it’s accurate at calling out OR. In case it isn’t clear my preference is to drafty under a new name per ATD. Failing that I say delete as OR. Keeping is not an option under policy because there are no sources discussing these events as titled and constructed here. Not a single source has been produced that uses the term Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390).4meter4 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should cover these events because they are notable is the relevant part for AFD. The title of the article can be changed without deletion. Srnec (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec This isn't a simple matter of renaming. These events aren't covered as isolated events in the academic literature'. They are covered as a small part of a larger war. That's why we need to draftify because as a stand alone event isolated in this way it isn't notable. As part of the notable Hungarian Civil War it can be covered.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (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.