Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest of Manila (1405)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of Manila (1405)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted as the sources provided don't establish that this conquest ever even happened. The first source is a secondhand reference, prefaced with uncertainty, to an already vague description of a fleet sailing to Manila. The second source makes an even more vague reference to "visits", "attempts", and "pretense of sovereignty". The third source literally has one sentence about this: "Ming emperor Yung Lo sends expeditions to Philippines, establishes Chinese trading posts." The fourth source is a blog by a non-expert, and vaguely states that Luzon was claimed. It refers to the fleets, but there is no mention of them traveling in force to Luzon or conquering any part of the island. The fifth source is also a blog from a non-expert, and vaguely refers to attacks and "attempts to subjugate Luzon".

In summary, whatever may be written about Chinese expeditions to Luzon, this article has no relation to it. The sources provided are either unreliable or offer only brief, vague statements about what might have happened. They certainly do not support the text or even the title of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Funny, I could have sworn this article was sent for deletion about six months ago. Perhaps there was another possible conquest of Manila lost in the mists of time and I’ve mixed them up. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is one, by the same author I think, called Conquest of Manila (1365). Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah yes that was it, thank you very much. Sorry to drift off topic but COULD AN ADMIN LOOK AT THIS PLEASE? There was a deletion discussion that closed on 18 June 2019 which resulted in 'Delete' with the author agreeing there were no sources to support the article. The same author has now apparently recreated the article as Conquest of Manila (1365). It may be that there are new sources or better scholarship to support it than there was back in June, but perhaps someone could check?  Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have recently analyzed the Wiki entry in the talk page and I have concluded that it has the same issues that led to the deletion of the previous Battle of Manila (1365) like for example original research, incapability of sticking to the source, and worse, outright unsourced claims. I suggest a separate discussion as to what to do with that Wiki entry. I don't understand why revived the article already deleted by consensus with subpar alterations. Stricnina (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have speedied that one. Deb (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure If there's any evidence that such an event occurred, I'd like us to keep and rename appropriately, eg. "1405 Manila incident". I feel like I don't have enough understanding of the issues to decide, based on what little I know. Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article suffers from original research (and also notability, as will be discussed later), with conclusions and other claims that are not present from the original sources. The only two provided sources worth looking for is the first source The Relations of the Chinese to the Philippines Islands (1905) and Edgardo E. Dagdag's Philippine-China Connection From Pre-Colonial Period To Post-Cold War Era, the latter of which is part of the Ho Khai Leong's book "Connecting and Distancing: Southeast Asia and China".


 * 1.) The first source didn't mention any conquest or battle happening in Manila during the year 1405. When the year 1405 is mentioned in page 257, only the account from the Ming Shi is mentioned about the Yongle Emperor sending a "high officer" in "Luzon" (N.B.: NOT Manila but "Luzon"), which resulted in the establishment of a Chinese embassy there. There is no mention of conquest or battle in the relevant page. The page is also clear that the Ming Dynasty was interested only in "extending its fame over land and sea to the farthest extremities of the world", not about conquest and occupation. In the next page (pg. 258), there is a mention of "old Spanish accounts", and in particular of the account of a certain Father Gaubil recounting that a thirty thousand fleet was sent to Manila at various times, although there was no mention what was the purpose of sending the fleet there. There is also no mention whether the fleet visited Manila in the year 1405 or whether they were instructed to conquer Manila. The user used these sources to prove that a "conquest" happened but the information at hand didn't explicitly mention any conquest, but only "visits". Also, |the word "conquest" only appeared three times in the aforementioned source, with the first two mentions referring to the Spanish conquest, and the third mention of the word "conquest" was about the "conquest of Terrenate". Again, the user extracted his own conclusions that a conquest occurred using this first source that did not mention any 1405 conquest or battle of Manila.


 * 2.) The second source didn't mention any conquest or battle. At best they were "visits". From the source itself: "The fleet visited (emphasis mine) Lingayen in Pangasinan, Manila Bay, Mindoro and Sulu. These visits took place in 1405–06, 1408–10, and 1417." The relevant page (page 33) did not made any explicit mention of "conquest" or even "battle" or "invasion" of Manila with such a fleet, but only "visits". It can also be argued that the fleet was only there for intimidatory purposes, like in the case of the Perry Expedition between Japan and the United States. Unfortunately, used this source to infer that a "conquest" happened despite the source itself not being precise and detailed enough to specify what exactly happened during the year 1405.


 * 3.) The fourth and the fifth sources are not reliable. One is self-published blog entry by a certain Paul Kekai Manansala, which is an unknown in the academic sphere, while the other one is an opinion piece from a news website Globalita. The user Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. is probably using these two sources to strengthen his re-interpretation of the first and the second source.


 * I also want to add that there is no significant academic coverage of the 1405 event between Manila or Luzon and China, so the notability of the event in question is questionable. In summary, the reinterpretation of source materials and coming to conclusions which were not explicitly mentioned in source materials (i.e. original research) and the questionable notability of the 1405 event make the article eligible for deletion. I therefore support its deletion, and the subsequent migration of some relevant information to already existing Wikipedia entries (like the Yongle Emperor, Ming Dynasty, etc.), as the current sources at hand are not enough to create a separate Wiki entry about this "supposed" 1405 "conquest". Stricnina (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Stricnina's excellent analysis. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Someguy1221 and Stricnina have pointed out, there is insufficient sourcing for the content of the article.  TimBuck2 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the analysis by Stricnina and my own search. I had unpleasant encounters with Paul Kekai Manansala on the Usenet group sci.archaeology many years ago when he was pushing Gavin Menzies. Note I've taken another article by the same editor, Kedatuan of Dapitan, to Articles for deletion/Kedatuan of Dapitan. Doug Weller  talk 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see that the article author was indefinitely blocked earlier today so perhaps this is all moot. Some of their other contributions may be equally doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments on the talk page. As someone who was involved with the previous Battle of Manila (1405) discussion, I can vouch that while the content of the articles has changed, the underlying OR problems remain. signed,Rosguill talk 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is totally made up propaganda. It never, ever happened. There was a tiny (starting with less than 100 households) Chinatown in Manila starting about 1594. That's not an invasion, much less a conquest. I've personally been there with my Filipino partner. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Any chance of closing this now as SNOW DELETE? There doesn’t seem much point in letting it run any longer. Mccapra (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2019 (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.