Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Klingenthal

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. ✗plicit 00:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Klingenthal[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)

No reliable source given - the only stated source for the actual battle does not mention it (Vol. 4 of "The Cambridge Modern History" from 1906, see CHAPTER XIII. THE LATER YEARS OF THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR under http://mateo.uni-mannheim.de/camenaref/cmh/cmh.html#cmh4); probably a hoax Palastwache (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I' ve tried a Google books search and found no mention of a "battle of Klingenthal" (or in German "Schlacht bei Klingenthal") either. You may check for yourself. Palastwache (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition 2: Google Scholar lists [one mention] in a self-publishing book from 2020. The mention on page 117 reads like it was copied from Wikipedia: "After a brief continuation of the campaign that ended with the battle of Klingenthal, it allowed Sweden to occupy Saxony." Palastwache (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's Google Books not Google Scholar, and Clube de Autores is a self-publishing service. I checked the index of Parker's The Thirty Years War (2006). No Klingenthal. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found it first via Google Scholar because I searched on Google Books initially only with the German term and with "Klingenthal 1642". Looks like this only mention is definitely not a reliable source. Palastwache (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of 42 battles in de Peyster 1884, pp. 630–636 has no Klingenthal. The second Breitenfeld battle is followed by the Surprise of Tuttlingen on 1643-11-24. No battle on on 1642-11-11 is listed. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- de Peyster, J. Watts (December 1884). "The Thirty Years War". United Service: A Monthly Review of Military and Naval Affairs. Vol. 11, no. 6. pp. 629–681.
There's no Klingenthal to be found in either volume of Anton Gindely's 1884 History of the Thirty Years' War, which are FUTON and searchable. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: just trying to help, it just appearred as if you had added content but forgot to sign (no big deal, it happens) but now it appears you wanted it that way. Were you trying to manually create the equivalent of a reftalk template? Just curious. - wolf 04:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a very simple ordinary list, below a very definitely signed discussion contribution. And you just randomly blanked part of what I wrote with this comment, notice. I respect the intentions, but the execution has generated some repair work. And it wasn't necessary in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, you can't possibly think that was deliberate. Aside from that, you made an edit and left content that appearred as if it was unsigned. Again, if you were trying to create a manual reflist, there is a template for that. That said, just put your signature at the end/bottom of your posts to avoid issues like this. Have a nice day - wolf 11:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've asked about it on Swedish Wikipedia, and another user took it to German Wikipedia, to see if we can dig up anything. /Julle (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search on Swedish and German Wikipedia didn't yield anything. Likely hoax. /Julle (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked The Northern Wars by Robert Frost (albeit via a fragmentary gbooks search) and it's not mentioned, despite a significant discussion of Breitenfeld. I would also delete as a likely hoax. Wham2001 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. I too came up with nothing. Srnec (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This (if real) was certainly not a major engagement: 1500 men v 2400. For second Breitenfeld, it was 20000 v 26000, but that does not mean that a minor engagement did not happen. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron: But do we have anything which does indicate it took place? Any reliable source whatsoever? The entire problem is that the sources referenced don't mention the battle, nor can we find it anywhere else where it ought to have been mentioned, the sole exception being a self-published book which most likely copied Wikipedia. I don't think anyone has questioned it on notability grounds, but only due to verifiability. /Julle (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: This is not about relevance - the numbers do not matter. It is about verifiability and to some degree also about plausibility. We have until today no reliable source and the content, despite seemingly plausible on the surface, is not very convincing to me in the details. 1) "Count Magnar Svendssen"? - no evidence of his existence. 2) "cannon ... spirited out of Breitenfeld" - the Swedes captured all imperial guns at Breitenfeld. 3) Infantry fleeing from Breitenfeld all the way to Klingenthal? - in general, infantry either had time and cover for an orderly retreat or it would not leave the battlefield at all (the northern infantry group of the Imperials at Breitenfeld retreated orderly, the southern group was entirely captured); Klingenthal is no plausible flight-destination, the fastest way back to Bohemia would be via Dresden and there were Saxon garrisons (allied with the Imperials) in Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Dresden, Freiberg, Chemnitz and Zwickau, all providing temporary safety. 4) Almost no survivors on one side? - not common practice in this war, soldiers tended to capitulate and to let themselves forced into enemy ranks rather fighting to death; exceptions exist but were reported as remarkable (i. e. the failed surrender of Spanish battalions at Rocroi). 5) And have you noticed the longbows? Longbows in 1642? Palastwache (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2022 (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.