Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaccan-Siamese war
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Malaccan-Siamese war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverifiable AI-generated piece full of dubious statements and fake references. Will need WP:TNT to be of any appropriateness for Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD G3. I found this source discussing relations between the two during this time period and the only warfare between the two was a failed punitive expedition c. 1500. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the topic itself is not so blatantly a hoax; it's discussed on page 114 in the linked article. Older sources such as G. E. Marrison in 1949 do describe the engagements as a state of warfare. But the historical sources are scarce in detail, and most of the article as it stands is heavily embellished AI hallucinations, so maybe one could consider it a hoax in that sense. Don't know if that's enough for G3, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I suppose you're right. I missed that part when skimming. I would still consider the article a hoax as written, but not a blatant one as required by G3. I concur with the use of TNT here, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the topic itself is not so blatantly a hoax; it's discussed on page 114 in the linked article. Older sources such as G. E. Marrison in 1949 do describe the engagements as a state of warfare. But the historical sources are scarce in detail, and most of the article as it stands is heavily embellished AI hallucinations, so maybe one could consider it a hoax in that sense. Don't know if that's enough for G3, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per G5, creator is a blocked sockpuppet.The TNT concerns and the apparent generation of fake references elsewhere does not create the impression there is much to save. CMD (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- It turns out there was a mistake in the SPI closure, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unusual, struck, suppose we're back to looking at the sources providing no google hits. CMD (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It turns out there was a mistake in the SPI closure, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)