Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Nāblus (1260)

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. Any editor is free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nablus (1260)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was no battle of Nablus. We already have Battle of Nablus and Battle of Nablus (1918) articles about recognised battles but this particular article is pure OR and not backed by the cited sources or, indeed, other sources. There WAS a Battle of Ain Jalut on 3 September 1260, but history does not award any 1260 conflict with the name 'Battle of Nablus'. The title, with its date and transliteration mark, does not make sense for a redirect, hence deletion of this article (which itself contains no detail of any 'battle' that took place) is the answer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Islam, and Palestine. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems like a simple confusion with the Battle of Ain Jalut. In any case, any troop movements or skirmishes in 1260 in the environ of Nablus would be better covered in the background and aftermath sections of the page of that singularly significant battle in 1260. Britannica seems to be largely to blame for this mix-up, not mentioning the Battle of Ain Jalut by name and simply referencing a battle 'near Nablus' (it's not, but hey ho). The Humphreys citation critically lacks a page number. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a battle of Nablus in 1260, but the article is lying about it. Here is what Humphreys says at p. 352:
In Nablus, the main town on the road between Damascus and Gaza, [Al-Nasir] established a rear guard to hinder the Mongol advance, putting it under the command of Mujir al-Din b. Abi Zakari and Nur al-Din 'Ali b. Shuja' al-Din al-Akta' [and] then proceeded on to Gaza . . . Shortly after al-Nasir's departure from Nablus, a Mongol advance party under Kushlu Khan surprised the Ayyubid garrison in the olive groves outside the town. The defenders were destroyed almost instantly and both commanders were killed. Only a few wounded soldiers managed to escape and inform al-Nasir what had happened. Alarmed by the sudden, ghostlike approach of the Mongols so near his own camp, the sultan took his forces on to al-'Arish, hoping that this would be a securer place to await the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt.
This was in February 1260, not September. It wasn't the Mamluks, but the Ayyubids. It was a Mongol victory. The defeated commanders have names. The article is 100% bullshit, but the title is perfectly legit. The impact of the Mongols on Nablus is mentioned in our articles Tolidah and Mongol raids into Palestine. —Srnec (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it should redirect to the relevant section in the latter pending someone taking an interest in doing it properly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. An {{R with possibilities}} that can be fixed when somebody (maybe me) gets around to it. Srnec (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super, if we could please also in the process junk that damn transliteration mark over the 'a' of Nāblus... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page without leaving a redirect. Although the more I look at it the clearer it is that the user who created it did not make an honest mistake... Srnec (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on that - and there are a number of these creations under their moniker... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2022 (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.