Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedatuan of Dapitan

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. Consensus is that, if someone finds better sources, this can be recreated, but at the moment those sources just aren't there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Kedatuan of Dapitan

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kedatuan of Dapitan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I can't find any reliable sources. The first is a travel site, the 2nd just a name and a year, the third doesn't mention the subject - I downloaded it from Project Muse. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is in the "suspected hoax" category, and indeed, for the quality of the sources, it may well be. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC).
• … except that it isn't.

  It it were not for the author's insistence at Talk:Kedatuan of Dapitan#Name that this was not a kingdom, you would have found sources by now. I don't know how the reliability of Ferdinand Marcos as a source is perceived, but the Kingdom of Dapitan is on page 107 of xyr 1976 History of the Filipino People, volume 2. Zeus A. Salazar also mentions it, apparently, according to a footnote in another source; although I haven't tracked this down. It may not have been a true kingdom, but there are definitely people other than the Wikipedia editor who submitted this talking about people who used to live in the strait off Bohol, using ″kingdom″ as the name.

  The obfuscation supplied by the Wikipedia editor who created this is in calling it something else. Look for ″kingdom″. Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• According to the aforementioned footnote, this mentions the Ternate-Dapitan war that this article talks about:

  Salazar, Zeus A. (1999). "Ang 'Real' ni Bonifacio bilang Taktikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas". In Bonifacio, Andres (ed.). Bayani, Manunulat, Pangulo ng Haring Bayan at Pinunong Militar. Quezon City: Limbagan ng Kasaysayan.

  Someone else will have to read that. The ″another Venice″ remark by Alcina you can attribute to the aforementioned page 107 of Marcos' History. As well as, indeed, to page 30 of Ramon N. Villegas' Tubod: The Heart of Bohol. Sources are, it seems, possible to come by. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is also 'Dapitan Kingdom of Bohol by Athena Garcia on Academia.edu and Dapitan Kingdom: A Historical Study on the Bisayan Migration and Settlement in Mindanao, circa 1563 by Jonathan B. Catubig. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This University of Chicago Press source citing several Jesuit missionaries doesn't call Dapitan a kingdom but does describe an independent settlement of approximately a thousand Bisayan families who seized a defensible rugged hill on Mindanao and were led by Datu Pagbuaya and had 7000 Christian inhabitants in 1656. Lach, Van Kley (1998) Asia in the Making of Europe, Volume III. This source indicates this is not a hoax and that Dapitan was an historically significant settlement, whether the description as a kingdom is appropriate or not. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs serious sourcing work though. Zero^talk 19:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Adds: nominate for deletion again if it hasn't improved for a few months. Zero^talk 21:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Mccapra: is that first one published anywhere? I don't know if your second source meets RS. I knew Dapitan existed, that isn't the issue. This article is about a Kedatuan and is a mess. Anyone can create a new one about a kingdom or settlement, but that's no reason to keep this one. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment @Doug Weller: I can’t see that it’s published anywhere, no. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this article given that the creator has just been indefinitely blocked, so if the consensus is to delete it and allow a properly written article on the same topic to be created at a later date, that’s fine by me. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The Wiki entry in its current state needs some really major overhauls, especially with such a title. Kedatuan does not appear in the very few sources that I have identified thus far. I personally prefer the deletion of the Wiki entry with the title "Kedatuan of Dapitan" and re-create a new one (perhaps with a better title which should be a name used in the academic sphere) when a new editor with better sources finally appears. I am also contacting people for sources so I hope in the future I can participate in either fixing the article (if the deletion doesn't go through) or re-creating the page (when the sources do come up). In the meantime, I suggest deletion of "Kedatuan of Dapitan" but I support a re-creation of a page with a better title and better references. Stricnina (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm just not seeing the reliable sources to support this article, and much of it appears to be completely unsourced. There may well be a valid article that can be written on this subject (either with this title or with a different one), and the sources unearthed above suggest there might be, but that's not what AfD is supposed to be about - we're here to decide whether this current article should be kept, not whether we should have an article about the subject. I would support Stricnina in an attempt to create a properly sourced article, but the current one is a big no for me - it needs to be deleted, and started again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - while Kedatuan of Dapitan may have existed, the information in the article cannot be confirmed - there is just too much unsourced material here - better to delete the article than have false information or original research - I did a search of the de Jong Journal and could find no mention of the information it is cited as supporting - if the article is deleted now it can be recreated in the future if better sourcing is found - Epinoia (talk) 14:38, 29 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.