Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Brazos Santiago


 * 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 - Notable engagement - renaming is advisable and should be discussed on talk page. Mike Cline (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Brazos Santiago

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This topic does not exist. I've read multiple scholarly works (with publication dates ranging from the 1940s through 2010) on the Texas Revolution, and none have ever listed a battle by this name, or with these events. The Handbook of Texas, an encyclopedia compiled by the Texas State Historical Association, does not list an entry for a battle by this name. A search of Google books and Google scholar for "Brazos Santiago" lists only a few mentions of Civil War skirmishes (but none called "Battle of Brazos Santiago". Scholars do not recognize this as an offical battle. The article on the ship already contains information on the skirmish; no more is necessary, and the title is not a good redirect because no scholarly sources use it. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following connected article. Like the first, this "battle" appears to be not recognized under this title, or as a true "battle". There is no entry in the Handbook of Texas, no hits on Google books or Google scholar, and no mention in the various scholarly works about the Texas Revolution. Small naval skirmishes like this are frequent in times of war, but rarely rise to be notable in and of themselves. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)



Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment What do you mean they didn't exist? You appear to make two arguments, one being that the battles didn't exist, and then you go on to say that the battles were not notable. Do you think they did not exist, or do you think they are not notable? I'm not an expert on the Texas War of Independence, so I'm unaware of their notability, but the articles are not sourced improperly and I have little doubt they occured.  Wacky Wace  you talkin' to me? 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Merge As I understand it, the nominator's essential argument is that while these conflicts took place, they are not notably referred to by any particular name. In other words, the Texan schooner Invincible did engage a Mexican foe at Brazos Santiago, but there is no "Battle of Brazos Santiago." Regardless, my take is that while the content is fine, the topic is essentially a manufactured name for a real conflict that is already covered on the separate article on the Texan schooner. The sources are all covering the schooner, not any particular battles, and do not offer names for any of these singular engagements. I suggest merging any additional content from this article to Invincible and deleting -- assuming that there is any content in this article not already present in the article on Invincible. The same holds for the Brazos River engagement. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is what I meant. There were naval skirmishes, but no scholarly sources to establish that this was notable as a battle, and no sources that even give the skirmish a name. Karanacs (talk)

Comment - Is this the same engagement? (I don't have the full article now): "...a cruise near Tampico, fell in with Mexican schooner-of-war Montezuma and brought her to action, which lasted several hours, when the Montezuma, after sustaining much damage, succeeded in retiring into port before she was entirely disabled, leaving the Invincible uninjured." History of the Texas Navy, George F. Haugh, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Apr., 1960), pp. 572-579. Probably doesn't give the engagement a name, but wanted to pass it along. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to be, yes. Granted, I am completely unfamiliar with the history here, but based on the description offered at the sources used in this article, that sounds like the same engagement.  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- :• Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename, the battle is sourced and did occur though it does not have a name. It should be noted that in naval literature all events involving conflicts such as a hostile capture, fleet engagement, skirmish, or single ship engagements are all grouped together under the term action. The current naming conventions used for unnamed naval battles follow the Action of (insert date here format). There are dozens upon dozens of articles using this format including several good articles and featured articles such as Action of 1 August 1801. I suggest that this article be renamed to Action of 17 April 1837.XavierGreen (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep although possibly rename, I agree with XavierGreen. There are two issues here, is this action notable, and if so is this the best title? The sinking of a cruiser does seem notable. The title could be a problem, we had a previous dispute about OR titles for naval actions, see talk at Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran. Possible legitimate titles are "Action of (the date)", "Action between Texan schooner Invincible and Mexican cruiser Montezuma", "Texan schooner Invincible v. Mexican cruiser Montezuma" and "Sinking of Mexican cruiser Montezuma". It is surely US-centric to assume that everything can be dealt with in the article on the Texan ship, doesn't the Mexican ship get its own article given time? Are we sure its name really was Montezuma and not Moctezuma? PatGallacher (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.