Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragusan trade with India


 * 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. My sense of the discussion is that this topic can possibly be covered reliably, but that the Himal Southasian source isn't a sufficient basis. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ragusan trade with India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:GNG is not met. Ample pseudohistory - see this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of us can't read your Italian link, sorry, you should instead provide some English citations from it, and explain why it's a reliable source. In general, that Ragusans travelled to India should not be pseudohistory, it's easy to find book mentions, e.g. "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II: Volume I" by Fernand Braudel 'Ragusans in the sixteenth century travelled to ... sometimes to India, often to England, and in at least one case to Peru'. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-English sources are not forbidden or even, discouraged. That being said, consult footnote 329 at TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will provide a short summary; give me a day. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to São Braz: This would benefit from a rename to the colony itself, rather than the generic term. A number of sources describe the colony in detail (   (I can't access the latter source, but the google preview shows it talks about it. )). The colony itself would pass WP:GEOLAND. Also @nominator, what are you referring to with the book you linked? Curbon7 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)  Comment: I just read the ANI related to this page. Striking my comments, I want no part in this. Curbon7 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a title would be better compared to the current WP:NDESC title, especially when we literally have the article currently quoting a historian saying there's no conclusive proof of a colony there. We know the church was named after St. Blaise, but not much about the trading post / potential colony per se. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW that journal article is from 1963, while the source I mention, that is in the article, is from 2018. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Croatia Week (and TOI, declared to be of dubious reliability at WP:RSP) are definitely reliable sources to document economic history in a controversial domain. Himal Southasian is a decent magazine (employs academics as editors) but have you read it? This article can be redirected to Gandaulim at best. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Potential keep -- I see nothing incredible in the content. Of course I do not have the book and my Italian is minimal.  The article needs a lot more citations, but the test is verifiable, not verified.  I do not think it is implying a colony in terms of foreign settlers in India, more likely a community of merchants cooperating together.  This is how overseas trade often worked.  Accordingly I doubt this is pseudo-history.  Even if it was, the fact that a view has been put forward and later debunked may be sufficient to justify a WP article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Deserves nothing more than a paragraph at Gandaulim. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few hundred books and a few thousand journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? I think that is the answer to this AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure if this is better - this now seems like the modern-day village article is being WP:COATRACK'ed with a bunch of information about a historical story that may well have a different context (this reminds me of having to clean up talking about Roman times in Zagreb instead of in Andautonia). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion; and as others have pointed out sources do exist which verify the content. I think there are enough sources to pass GNG based on those in the article and those presented above by Curbon7. Currently, discussion is centering around the need for this topic to exist as a stand alone article or whether it should be merged somewhere else. AFD isn't really the right venue for determining a merge where an article's deletion is not necessary. As such, I suggest closing this AFD as keep and discussing merge options on the article's talk page before making a formal merge proposal at the proper venue.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas? The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay. If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate, Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few thousand books and tens of thousands of journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the disputed factual accuracy of this, I would be loathe to close as no consensus, unless there truly is no alternative. Is there any appropriately suitable redirect target?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This does appear to be pseudohistory, and if it is based on a vague historical accuracy, that does not come through in the article text. The current article appears to by WP:COATRACKing on the idea of trade between Ragusa and India, which may be notable, with a complete focus on trying to claim there was a Ragusan colony. Whatever the reliability of the Himal/Tomas source, it is being misrepresented in this article, which paints as close to a certainty what the Himal/Tomas source treats as a curious historical myth of unsure accuracy. The second source seems to similarly treat it as hearsay. There might possibly be GNG for the actual topic of Ragusan trade with India (which this article doesn't really look into), or for the myth of the colony, but at the moment this is neither of these. CMD (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you. I have covered the episode at this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion without commenting on redirecting or merging. A Ragusan trading colony at Goa is mentioned in Peter Frankopan's Silk Roads and Brill's Handbook of Hinduism in Europe. If this is "pseudohistory", it is the kind that had gone mainstream in top-shelf sources. Given that the nom has created a competing section on the topic in a different article, this is a content dispute and deletion does not seem appropriate. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And these sources treat it as a 48km separate territory with a capital and official status that was carved out of Portuguese Goa and then returned to it? The issue here is not the concept (albeit a different concept to the article title), it is the article. Deletion is an appropriate and suggested option for a WP:POVFORK. CMD (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV need to be exhibited. Frankopan spends less than half of a line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination makes no sense. WP:GNG is easily established with following sources:
 * Theres more than just these.TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first citation is incorrect. Recheck details and don't use Google metadata blindly. You are citing this article from about 80 years ago - I have already used it in my section alongside recent sources, all of which paint a contrasting picture. What's new?
 * The mention in the last source is by the same author (Vuk Vinaver), I quote in support of pseudo-history. The title goes Mercanti E Bastimenti Di Ragusa in India: . It is obvious that you have not even read the source, you are quoting.
 * Go to a real library, borrow books, and read them; google Snippets are usually worthless. If you can write anything more than what stands at this section, take the lead. I wish to see how that ends up. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * stop being disruptive and stop changing my comment like you are doing in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Your comment came 2 minutes after my edit so better fix your own comment. The last source is accessible and the chapter is "Mercanti e bastimenti di Ragusa in India". You can also ask someone else for source access. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I insisted that your citation to Hicks stayed because it shew how you are engaging in an AfD without reading a single source and based on the hits GSnippet throws up.
 * I have never claimed the last source to be inaccessible. I have already quoted the chapter-name, author, and how it supports my point (than your's) - why are you quoting it back at me but excluding a sig. part (Una Leggenda)? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I insisted that your citation to Hicks stayed because it shew how you are engaging in an AfD without reading a single source and based on the hits GSnippet throws up.
 * I have never claimed the last source to be inaccessible. I have already quoted the chapter-name, author, and how it supports my point (than your's) - why are you quoting it back at me but excluding a sig. part (Una Leggenda)? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Gandaulim (Ilhas). This article is an inferior WP:CONTENTFORK of that article -- they deal with the same topic but the other article verifiably qualifies the same claims as unproven. Himal coverage doesn't make the claims verifiable. The other reference reads as follows: -- translation: some researchers hypothesized on there being a Ragusan colony São Braz in the vicinity of Goa, but there is not yet enough evidence to verify this claim. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect. The article at present is a plain WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK with significant misrepresentation, while the topic or at least an appropriate overview of it is already covered in Gandaulim (Ilhas). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is perfectly valid, notable, sourced and interesting. It just needs expanding. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Validity and interestingness aren't criterion for keeping an article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but notability and sourcing are. Validity and interest nevertheless do reinforce notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect per WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. The article is largely sourced to a single source, the Himal one, which appears to be a travelogue of sorts rather than a history. The only other source is supporting the non-existence of evidence of a colony so it's not exactly comforting. Of the sources brought up in this discussion, the Mare Magnum source calls it a "legend". The slavonic studies article is from the 1940s, the statement about the colony is a throwaway one with no evidence cited. Nothing more can be said about the topic that is not already said in Gandaulim (Ilhas) (which is already saying more than is legitimate). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (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.