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 delete. In view of the socking and POVFORK concerns outlined in the discussion, and the unrebutted assertion that the history of this article is already in the history of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations, which allows editors to build on it if deemed necessary. Sandstein 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a non-formal discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#The_Ottoman-Portuguese_Conflict_deletion. I haven't read through the whole article yet, but a quick glance shows that it's a WP:POVFORK of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations (formerly Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts). My main concern is that there are so many quotations in it that I had originally considered it for WP:G12, but it may have some material that could be saved and incorporated into the already existing article. The article (formerly "The Portuguese-Ottoman War") also very clearly essay-like and non-neutral in its tone. It was a good faith initiative by its creator, but there are so many issues here that we're way past the point of preservation, and improving it would most likely involve cutting its size down by over 80%. And finally, the inclusion of "Ottoman" in the title may be misleading, since the majority of confrontations in the Indian Ocean involved other Muslim states like the Mamluk Sultanate, for which we already have Portuguese-Mamluk naval war, as well as the Gujaratis among others. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it would be better if people read the Ottoman-Portuguese War carefully before suggesting its deletion since it provides objective and valid sources about the matter. It's not reasonable to label this article as WP:POVFORK since the other article (Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts) is not clear about its objective and aim, putting inside it cunfusing battles and nations from different conflicts. We cannot say what the creator of the article had in mind when he/she wrote it, but no primary source is cited expressing the main point of the article. This can be attested by looking at other periods of battles between other nations that this article mentions like the articles Turkish Crusade and the Ottoman-Venetian War which are totally inaccurate and odd (at minimum) when it comes to the Portuguese participation against the ottomans since no Portuguese primary sources (or even Ottomans', I'm sure) attest a state of war between both nations prior to the 16th century. On the other hand, the article Ottoman-Portuguese War provides at least three different Portuguese primary sources about this state of war, and this article is all concerned about the 16th century in which the war was really declared according to these Portuguese sources. Well, why should an article cite the Turkish Crusade and Ottoman-Venetian War in the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts? Certainly, this has nothing to do with the Ottoman-Portuguese War. Because of these confusions and lack of clarity we can understand why the Ottoman-Portuguese War article was correctly created. That's why it was suggested the deletion of the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts, because it's totally vague and does not express an objective perspective on the matter.
Now, the claim that the Ottoman-Portuguese War has a "non-neutral" tone is not right to say either. Perhaps, this 'feeling' is due to the fact that the majority of sources agree that the Portuguese were militarily superior to the Ottomans in the 16th century, mainly because of its superior sea power. By the way, how could we explain that the Portuguese succeeded against the Ottomans (and their allies, of course) to secure the Indian Ocean and control the monopoly of spice trade in the region if we don't explain their ability and capacity to do that? This impression of a 'non-neutrality' concerning the article should and must go away by simply reading the huge ammount of sources cited (western and eastern, by the way), which some people unfortunatly don't bother to read. Reading the article carefully we can see that the crontributors of the page always cite a valid source to confirm every point presented, letting the sources speak for themselves. This is neutrality. There are no contradictions in this article. It's also wrong to say this article is "essay-like" because it is not based on "personal opinions", but it's based on dozens of respected and valid sources about the matter. Again, the sources cited can clarify that misunderstanding.
Again, the Portuguese primary sources are very clear in the state of war against the Ottomans, which are totally supported by the modern sources cited in the Ottoman-Portuguese War article, and as also cited there, the Ottomans fought allied with many muslim powers in the 16th century. The Portuguese-Mamluk naval War were one of the many wars the Portuguese fought in the Indian Ocean, but according to the sources, the Ottomans were the only power present in virtually every battle against the Portuguese during the whole of the 16th century, not the Mamluks, the Somali, the Mughals and other small players.
Once more, I would kindly ask everyone to read carefully and study both articles and check the sources cited, because the difference between both articles are very clear. Sadly, some people are just concerned about the guidelines of Wikipedia instead of read the articles and analyse them critically according to the facts presented. Sir Thiago (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be better if we provide evidences for our claims, because it seems this discussion is heading towards personal opinions only. The article Ottoman-Portuguese War has nothing to do with the battles alone, in which only names and references are cited for the sake of examples; no discussion is taken on that assumption, because it deals with the background, military and economic aspects of the war. It's the only article that cites primary sources and the aftermath of the entire strife. So, what's the reason of separating the war into two, like Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589)? On what evidences are those articles based? Should we write now a third, forth an so on? Should we write an article about the "Ottoman-Portuguee conflicts (1506-1509, (1510-1512)? There are no sources supporting it, again, those articles are considered stubs here. Also, according to primary sources at Torre do Tombo National Archive there was a declaration of war on the first years of the 16th century, just check the section "Declaration of War" on the Ottoman-Portuguese War article for more information.
As for the point that "most of the sources are also nothing more than a title" could you tell me which ones are these? Almost 100% of the sources cited on the article can be checked on Google Books, but not all of them because they are simply not available there. However, the complete reference is provided for further research, according to WP instructions. So, this point cannot be taken against the article whatsoever. Sir Thiago (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the point: All the issues raised about text quality are and should be worked on, i.e. modern terminology should be amended where inappropriate (however, note that every serious historical analysis is made from a modern point of view); whatever lack of neutrality exists can and should be washed off; and essay-like verbiage can be corrected. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you overlooking the CFORK concerns and the possible copyright infringement? Are those "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments? I actually did propose that we incorporate the non-problematic material into Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations, and I invite Sir Thiago to take the lead in the process of saving this material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the remarks. I find your concerns about WP:POVSPLIT valid but I do not see much of an issue: This is an article that can stand on its own, although the similarity with other subjects might lead eventually to merging. I see no reason to delete altogether, though, but as is my nature I remain open to argument. The copyright concern is evidently more serious. File under "issues that can be solved" through extensive paraphrasing and deletions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over-use of quotations and copyright violations are not the same things. One is a violation of our non-free content policy, and the other is a violation of our copyright policy. Articles with excessive quotations are not copyvio and do not qualify for G12 deletion. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until now, the only persons that presented valid arguments and reasoning are Sir Thiago and The Gnome since by just reading the Ottoman-Portuguese War article it's totally clear that it's not WP:CFORK at all. This article deal with the reasons, politics and military aspects of the war. Also, some of the arguments presented here against the article are totally invalid in terms of reliability. Every point made in the referred article is supported by valid sources, and that's the proof why this article is by no means essay-like. As for the other articles, supposedly about a war between the Ottomans and the Portuguese, what's the objective of those? Indeed, what's the porpuse of the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts article if inside it they cite Turkish Crusade and Ottoman-Venetian War? Compare this with the articles Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589) and see how vague and shallow they are. It seems clear that some here are just beeing driven by personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitudes and are not really critical about the article, because it's not possible to compare these articles with the Ottoman-Portuguese War. So, before suggesting a deletion of a valid and well done article, people should help to fix and improve it, that is the main focus of this encyclopedia. LordPedro (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— LordPedro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Are you guys serious about the deletion of this article? It's the only high-quality article citing primary sources about the war and presenting respected sources, and you want it to be deleted because of other bad referenced and not straight-forward articles? Wikipedia would lose and important entry if that happened. Just use reason, not your "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" opinion. IPCL (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— IPCL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, as article creator has been involved in puppetry shouldn't this article be deleted as a matter of course? i've seen wp be purged of other puppet editor work, why is this different? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G5 states that articles can be deleted if they have been created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. The rule further clarifies that the article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. The creator was only banned yesterday. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations or just delete. Much of this is an WP:ESSAY about conflicts between the Portuguese and Muslim states that may have owed nominal allegiance to the caliph, but were in practice independent. The Ottoman Empire did not rule in India or Aceh, so that they (together with much of the conflict in the Indian Ocean) do not belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this discussion gained some traction, I'd just like to take the chance to point out a few issues one last time. As mentioned above, everything in this article falls within the already existing Conquest of Tunis (1535), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589) or Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean (WP:CFORK). It's an article about a war, in which no battles are actually detailed or contextualized, only that according to some people, the Portuguese fought them really well (WP:POVFORKWP:IMPARTIAL). There's actually no clear structure or sucession of events, only a collection of concepts (WP:NOTESSAY). Also, if we take a look at the "declaration of war" section, we find not who declared war, when or why, but that such information can apparently be found at the National Archives of Lisbon... Somewhere (WP:NOR). Though numerous, most sources are actually completely unhelpful since they consist of nothing more than a title. So while I think it's fine to try and pin down the exact single major issue with the article, the whole thing just seems like a dumpster fire. Crenelator (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A10. This edit of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations with the edit summary "Due to criticisms about my edits in the original article, I'm removing all my contributions from this page to a new one, to encompass the whole period of war and battles between the Portuguese and the Ottomans" which shows absolutely clearly that not only is this a POVFORK, but it is deliberately intended to be a POV fork in a flagrant disregard for our guidelines. Since the entire content of this article is already in the history of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations a merge is entirely unnecessary. If editors feel this material has merit, they can simply roll back to the pre-deletion version and start cleaning it up from there. SpinningSpark22:42, 7 June 2018 (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.