Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Karánsebes (2nd nomination)

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 Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karánsebes

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

Finishing incomplete nomination for User:Jortberg, whose rationale (on talk page) was "This page is being repeatedly linked with the impression that it is historical fact. I do see that it is noted to be possibly apocryphal but even then I can see how others are getting the impression it is factual. The link on the Austro-Turkish War (1787-91) only furthers the confusion. I feel it should be deleted. The sources are poor. There is nothing academic about it. It has nothing going for it. Jortberg (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)" I note also concerns about the similarity between this and a Cracked article (which I've read before) on the talk page as well. The second source in the article is the only one which I am able to view. There was also an AfD back in 2010 with a result of delete. If this article were to be kept, it would have to very explicitly state that the story is based on unreliable accounts, which I think it does decently in its current state. Ansh6 6 6 06:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - count my !vote as a Neutral on this one. Ansh6 6 6 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page makes a convincing argument that the battle in question did not in fact occur. On the other hand, the story has been kicking around for many years and is clearly notable. What to do? Perhaps the article can be rewritten in a format that makes it clear that it is in fact a hoax. The story is apparently based on an account of a large friendly fire incident in 1789 given in the memoirs of Auguste de Marmont. In later retellings, this grows into an Austrian-on-Austrian "battle" with 10,000 dead -- and the year gets shifted to 1788. E. Pustuale Johnson (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable even if it didn't happen. And surely more useful to readers to have a page that provides accurate information than to turn them away empty-handed because we don't know exactly what happened. The page on German Wikipedia[1] has some more information and references, with a discussion of the sources. Rather than deleting, a merge to Caransebeș would be a better alternative to preserve content if people don't think the battle is quite notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The objection with this article appears to be that others are linking to it as something that really happened, but as long as the article makes clear it probably did not (and it presently does), that is not the fault of the article itself. It is possible to write a passable article about psuedo-historical entities, like Brutus of Troy, which details the legacy of a king that never existed, or his equally fictional descendant Cordelia of Britain. That wouldn't change if some started linking to them as if they were real people. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The discussion is whether it's apocryphal, not about notability? Then the article should be fixed, not deleted. bogdan (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly states it is probably apocryphal. However, it does appear to have entered the "historical" record, so whether it actually happened or not it is notable enough to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This battle was a part of Austro-Turkish War (1787–91) ( In the article it was written as Austro-Turkish War of 1787–91 which is a red link. But no problem it can be redirected).Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That it was part of a war is not a factor for inclusion. We don't have articles on every skirmish that's ever happened. Ansh6 6 6 19:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This seems to be notable as a case of friendly fire (even if apocryphal). However, I do not like the present name: Karánsebes incident perhaps. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 14 October 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.