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 move to Battle of Chaliyam and redirect to Vettathunad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chalium

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cut down article originally wholly copied from Vettathunad and attempt to raise an obscure, non-notable skirmish at a fort to a battle standing. There was no "Battle of Chalium". GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be a spelling error in the article title; it's Chaliyam not Chalium. There are five books that discuss "Battle of Chaliyam" as can be seen here. Salih (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good catch, Salih! There are even more references when one looks farther afield, for example, searching for "fall of Chaliyam". In so far as these books are secondary references, and at least to a non-historian like me seem reliable, the topic is above notability threshold and would suggest that the article be kept. Mark viking (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains that the article is practically a word for word copy of part of two sections of the Vettathunad article that deal with the fall of the Chalium/Chalyum Fort: Battles at Chalium Fort and Smoothiris' second attempt (1571). As a minor event in the Portuguese–Indian conflict, does it not serve Wikipedia better to remain as a sub-heading in the article as it is already, albeit poorly, written? I will look at the references as noted above by Salih as to the use of the term "Battle of Chalyium." Maybe the western history book bias is at play here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back and forth between the Islamic calendar and the western calendar takes some doing. If I have it right, there was apparently another "battle of Chalium" 19–20 years after the 1571 event. Also, the targeted Wikipedia article also mentions a "battle of Chalium" which took place 1538–1540 (maybe actually a siege of some sort?), which I am finding impossible to source. So, my next question is, IF there was a "Battle of Chalium", which one of these three is it? And why is there no consensus by the eastern historians as to which one is it in the few works extent that mention Chalium? Food for thought. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct the spelling error and redirect to Vettathunad, this seems to be the most logical decision until there is more info added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of consensus, I would support a move and redirect as well, as this preserves the history of the current page for a future article. It is outright deletion that I think is unwarranted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom, I could support Move & Redirect. It is already a word-for-word content fork of Vettathunad, so the merge would both make sense and be relatively simple. In which case, I would happily withdraw the proposal for deletion. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:55, 12 February 2013 (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.