Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of the Bruneian Sultanate (1368–1888)

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military of the Bruneian Sultanate (1368–1888)[edit]

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

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

Like other articles on this subject matter, there is the possibility that the subject discussed is notable. However, the article fails to establish a strong basis for its periodization, both with its content and with sourcing. Sourcing itself is the largest issue, as only a single reference is present; previously, two blog posts supported some additional material redundant to Castilian War. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Asia, and Brunei. Pbritti (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs are written from a professional and according to Wikipedia:Newspaper and magazine blogs as it can be acceptable sources. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with @Syazwi Irfan: the blog by Rozan Yunos meets the exception criteria for blogs. Much of the content on the site are republications of his column "Golden Legacy" in the now defunct The Brunei Times and he does cite other sources. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor basis of rationale. Sure, the blog might be within the realm of being reliable, but it fails to provide a basis of for supporting the notability of the subject. The blog posts would be better suited to verifying the specifics regarding the historical they describe rather than being used as original research regarding a military that, as far as present sourcing is concerned, has no basis of being described as a single continuous institution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
No pp#. Looking at this on Google books, I failed to see how this could have WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book desc: "Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam examines the role of traditional textiles played in modern Brunei Darussalam. Hand-woven textiles are an important part of Brunei traditional culture. This book examines the types of textiles and the roles that they have played in different situations, such as serving as signifiers of social status, wealth, and political prominence. The study focuses on how locally woven textiles have been used to express and construct identity, especially Brunei Malay identity and Brunei national identity."	1. Siti Norkhalbi Haji Wahsalfelah (2007). Textiles and Identity in Brunei Darussalam. White Lotus Press. ISBN 978-974-480-094-7.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Page is in section on trade, does not address the subject	2. ^ Metcalf, Peter (2010). The Life of the Longhouse: An Archaeology of Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-11098-3.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not addressing the subject directly and indepth. Book is on trade, page 50 indicated in ref is the opening page of the chapter, the "Golden Age of Brunei", does not address the subject	3. ^ de Vienne, Marie-Sybille (2015). Brunei. From the Age of Commerce to the 21st Century. NUS Press. p. 50. ISBN 9789971698188.
(MA thesis)	4. ^ Jalil, Ahmad Safwan (2012). Southeast Asian Cannon Making in Negara Brunei Darussalam (MA thesis). Flinders University.
Book overview states, "The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei presents an overview of significant themes, issues, and challenges pertinent to Brunei Darussalam in the twenty-first century" and the article is about 1368–1888, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	5. ^ Gin, Ooi Keat; King, Victor T. (2022-07-29). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Brunei. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-56864-6.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "A 16th Century Spanish Account of Brunei". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "The First Dutch Visit to Brunei in 1600". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	8. ^ Yunos, Rozan. "Brunei in 1888". The Brunei Times. Retrieved 2023-10-29.

Nothing found in BEFORE. I thought "A history of Brunei", Saunders (2002) might have something, but it is focused on trade, political and social history; I did not search JSTOR.

There may be a notable subject here, especially during the 1485-1530 period, but the article as written needs TNT, there is nothing here properly sourced and worth keeping, that isn't WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Siti citation came from the Kalasag article, i am not sure where the others come from. maybe @Pbritti or @Pangalau can tell you where they got it from. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Syazwi Irfan improperly attempted to close the dicussion. I have reverted their close. // Timothy :: talk 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this should've already closed by 24 November 2023 Syazwi Irfan (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Syazwi Irfan AfD's are routinely relisted if there has not been enough participation or if consensus is not clear which is what happened here. There is no policy regarding how long an AfD can be open, though the norm is no more than three relists. Some can be closed quickly, in a day or so, per WP:SNOW or stay open for weeks. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy's source analysis. I do not agree with the statement that the blog deserves an exemption for GNG. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 11 December 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.