Battle of Kota Batu (1578) : I moved it to the draftspace for incubation.  After a brief period of andditions and the draft being declined by two editors (including myself), the article's creator appended a handful of citations and moved the article back to the mainspace.  I can find no indication of significant reference to the battle in any of these sources besides one blog post.  Additionally, at least one of the sources appears to be a middle school-level textbook.  Much of the information in this article is not cited to any reference.  I don't think this is a hoax so I think deletion back to draft is probably the best option.  Pbritti ( talk ) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Brunei , Philippines ,  and Spain .  Pbritti ( talk ) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then how come articles like Brunei People's Awareness Party can get away with it before?  its has literally no effort putting on the article?  it totally ridiculous.  Battle of Kota Batu (1578) at least had effort put into it.  Meanwhile Brunei People's Awareness Party has zero effort.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, The Castilian War article, when being made.  Only had an INFOBOX.  only in 22 September 2007 it had context.  They didn't even had REFERENCES.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the Battle of Kota Batu (1578) was also MARKED as a Stub.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:Other Stuff Exists .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good citations on Bruneian history are sadly hard to find.  The current text is written with a slant, but the core details seem roughly right.  This source (pp. 16-17) provides a ship number of 30 to 40, and provides a bit more political background, but devotes no time to this battle itself.  It doesn't refer to "Kota Batu" but simply "Brunei", but it's clearly the same place.  It gives a similar number of cannons (62, article has 64).  This source (page 30) mentions Seri Lela and Seri Ratna, but otherwise skips right through this period.  (Both sources are notably reasonably old at this point, reflecting the difficulty of finding information.)  Given the current paucity of sources both here and at Castilian War , corresponding to a very short length in each case, I would suggest redirect ing to Castilian War , merging The Battle section and the Aftermath detail.  CMD ( talk ) 07:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been on and writing Brunei wikipedia articles for a year now and I do agree that sources for the Bruneian Sultanate era are indeed very hard to come across, and are hardly reliable or valid with many different sources giving different informations for the same topic.  This convinced me to stay away from writing articles of that era as it could be challenging to fight for.  With how this article stands, I can only give my best of luck to justify its existence on Wikipedia.  Please do not be discouraged from writing future articles, other topics from the 1900 onwards are much easier to start from and more likely to be accepted (if done correctly).  DuckieWackie ( talk ) 08:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deferring to subject matter experts here.  I consider redirect to Castilian War a good solution, per CMD's digging.  Thanks for adding your two bits, too, DuckieWackie!  Your work in a poorly illuminated corner of history is a credit to this project.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 14:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, I am confused with the "62, article has 64" part.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source said there were perhaps 62 cannons (although it notes this was not a count from during the battle).  The article says 64, citing "Lloyd, Yeo (2010). Explore Social Studies...p. 39. ISBN 978-981-280-979-7" whose existence I cannot validate.  CMD ( talk ) 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Battle of Kota Batu (1578) article said 62 Cannons.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the infobox, yes, but not in the text of the article: "Bruneian defenders were already outnumbered the Bruneians which had only 64 cannons ".  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was accidentally Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So are we gonna delete (or draft) it or not?  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed the name to Siege of Kota Batu as it was a siege (of course.) Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I moved Battle of Kota Batu (1578) to Siege of Kota Batu (1578).  As its siege rather than a battle .  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 06:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have reverted your move.  Please do not move articles that are being discussed at an AFD, it complicates the discussion closure.  After it's closed, feel free to move the article.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I already made a topic in the main article.  it should be here .  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should talk about the article and not moves.  Syazwi Irfan ( talk ) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we're talking about article moves because you mistakenly moved the article.  Now the discussion can return to notability and sources.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per others.   The sourcing just isn't there.  S0091 ( talk ) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article has at least three sources that are scholarly and directly relevant which is enough to support the article.  I don't see how deleting or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, and draftify is for improvement when the article seems ready for mainspace as written.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that other material cited in the article does not actually verify the content of the article, so we are partially relying on AGF under those rocky circumstances to believe there are academic SIGCOV sources on this.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless I'm misreading that, it feels like it falls under WP:DINC , or it's WP:BABY writ large.  If instead you mean that the subject meets GNG only by inflating the attention that the sources pay to this event, I would still ! vote to Keep.  I think it would be wiser to err on the side of WP:NOTPAPER and give the benefit of the doubt.  To clarify what I said above, I don't see how deleting this entire article or redirecting would improve the encyclopaedia, even though the article could certainly use improvement.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Last1in can you or @ Syazwi Irfan point to a reliable source that has written in-depth about the event?   I struggle to understand how, for an example, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia , covers it as at least according to outline it begins in the 1800's but this event occurred in 1578.   Some details about what the sources actually state will be helpful.   Also  @ Chipmunkdavis states there is one source they can't find evidence it exists and @ Pangalau states reliable sources largely do not exist covering the time period.  S0091 ( talk ) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Castilian War per CMD's argument.  Not notable in its own right.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:32, 18 November 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect