Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byzantine Reconquisita

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 Speedy-deleted by User:Muboshgu as a blatant hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Reconquisita[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)

While there are sources about a Byzantine Reconquista (not a "Reconquisita" though), these mostly apply to the 10th or 11th century, and none seem to be about a post-1453 reconquista. The Nicol 2002 source doesn't use the term Reconquista, the Simon David Phillips source only mentions an "Iberian reconquista" once, but not the one treated in this article. While the article purports to be about battles from 1453-1492, the quote about the 15,000 to 50,000 Ottoman dead is about the 1522 siege of Rhodes against the Knights Hospitaller, who aren't even mentioned as belligerents in the infobox. So, a hoax or at best a completely misunderstood and mangled retelling of the Nicol source? Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page contains no body, just a mostly-unreferenced infobox, created in mainspace after it timed out in draftspace. The namespace is misspelled, and the intended namespace is used differently by Byzantine historians, mostly in reference to events of the 10th century, with some extending it as early as 7th and as late as 11th, but not these events of the 15th century. I am not familiar enough to know if Byzantine historians treat this half-century as a coherent period for which a single article would be appropriate, but even were this the case, it would need a different namespace and actual textual content, so even if it is a 'completely misunderstood and mangled' rendering of the source material, WP:TNT would still be appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the talk page of the article creator, it looks as if they are involved with "alternate history", i.e. fiction writing. Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - They did have drafts with "(alternate history)" and "alternate" in the namespaces, but with the deleted drafts unviewable it is unclear they didn't just portray alternative POVs (i.e. content forks) rather than alternative-history (fiction). Immaterial though - even WP:AGF, the page should be deleted. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking here at what the start of Draft:Prayz Constantine said, I think we are well into fiction land. However, like you say, it ultimately doesn't matter. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duck quacking loudly, spelling as observed by fram, weirdness of the sources as explained by agricolae - the iberian context played into byzantium/constantinople almost smells of latter day monty python or even better george bush analogy of border relations between canada and mexico have never been better JarrahTree 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the talk page of the creator is sufficient evidence in itself - repeated declined and deleted weirdness? JarrahTree 15:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has no prose whatsoever. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone was playing around in the wiki sandbox and published it in the main space in error. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Kadı Message 23:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even an article: it is a battlebox and a few references. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. The infobox is a blatant hoax; the Byzantine Empire never reconquered Anatolia from the Ottomans. The sources are fake and this article might well be Europa Universalis IV-inspired alternate history. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, hi, could you please close the discussion also? Kadı Message 06:10, 6 May 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.