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 redirect to Galata Tower. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Galata Tower (old)

Galata Tower (old) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The Galata Tower was built in 1348 and "historical" sources don't mention of any earlier tower in the location of this tower. Genoese people started to build the walls of Galata in 1335, so there were no wall before that date nor a tower. This source (unfortunately in Turkish, but at least it has an English abstract) clearly says that there are no historical reference for an earlier tower, and the source of this "myth" became anonymous. It also says that a castle in Karaköy called "Castrum Sancte Crucis" (Holy Cross Castle) had a tower, called "Turris Sancte Crucis" (Holy Cross Tower) and since the Galata Tower was called "Turris Sancte Crucis" as can be seen on this map, some sources got confused and mixed the history of the current tower and the tower of that castle which was demolished during the earthquake of 1766. Therefore, no reason to have an article of a building that had never existed or never had a reliable historical reference. Nanahuatl ( talk) 09:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete the evidence suggests this was never a thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment A number of sources make mention of an older tower (Megalos Pyrgos or Great Tower) used as the northern anchor of a chain raised across the Golden Horn first mentioned by Emperor Leo III in the 8th century and largely destroyed by the crusaders ( Fourth Crusade) in 1204. See, e.g., [1] (already cited in the article), [2], [3]. A number of these references point to Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, p. 815, ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6. 24.151.121.140 ( talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Correct, but it's the tower of a castle on the coast of the Golden Horn :) I have just added more information. And since the Galata Tower is on a hill, it doesn't seem logical to use that tower for the chain that blocks the sea located tens of meters below, does it? :)-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Move to Great Tower of Galata as suggested below. The older tower existed and is notable per the references I cited. That it likely was located 50 meters away from the present tower does not affect its notability. 24.151.121.140 ( talk)

• Comment: Even if the tower likely never existed I think it could still warrant an article if the myth is widespread enough, we already have articles for some things like that such as Belobog Pladica ( talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

The thing is @ Pladica:, some sources got confused about two different buildings which existed in the same time, they basically mix their histories. This old "Galata Tower" was just a tower of an early Byzantine fortress called "Kastellion" (the remains of the fortress has became the Underground Mosque). Basically, almost all the content of the article is wrong, and I don't think the tower of that fortress is notable. What we can do is that we create an article of the mosque, mention about the former fortress and its tower, that's all.-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Great Tower of Galata (the literal translation of the Greek name). This was clearly an important feature of the defences of Constantinople, as operating the chain that controlled access to the Golden Horn (harbour). It would be appropriate to have a single article on that defensive boom, and this can be it. It is not merely one tower of a city wall, which would not be separately notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Peterkingiron:, I don't know why we should use the Greek name instead of the Latin name that was given by Genoese people (people that built the tower and controlled it all the time), but, the tower itself doesn't seem notable. As I said, the remains of the fortress still exist as a mosque. So per WP:AS, the mosque article should be created first, if the old castle part becomes too long, this can be a seperated article. The chain was tied to the fortress, not its tower.-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 08:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nanahuatl: Have you been able to find any sources on the mosque itself? (I'm presuming that it still stands today). If so, then a paragraph about the mosque can be added, and then the information on the old tower can be included as a subsection. I think the situation is pretty similar to that of Hagia Sophia, with the whole function of the building changing over time. Keivan.f ^Talk 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Keivan.f:, the mosque is definetely notable. If the history of that becomes too long, we can create the castle article. But the tower definetely doesn't look notable, at least as far as I can see.-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 08:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

The I guess we can either delete or at least redirect this page to the one about Galata Tower, and create a separate article on the mosque. Keivan.f ^Talk 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Notability require significant coverage from two independent reliable secondary sources that address the subject directly and indepth. If two such sources with direct and indepth information about the subject had been found, experienced editors would not be wondering if the subject actually existed (physically or metaphysically) or it would be clear there is a academic debate about its existence. If the article cannot pass this mark, it definitely cannot pass the notability threshold. Articles have to clearly identify their subjects: if sources cannot do this, they do not meet SIGCOV.

I think some of the above good faith discussion is inadvertantly entering SYNTH territory.

Intentionally not a !vote, I'm open to being convinced.  //  Timothy ::  talk  20:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ TimothyBlue:, it was my mistake actually, I couldn't express myself clearly. The "myth" is that some sources confuse two irrelevant towers in Galata, because they share the same historical name ("Holy Cross Tower", because they both had a cross on their rooftops). What this article suggests that the Latins had destroyed this "Galata Tower" (no historical reference for this name), that it was the mark of the northern end of the great chain (no, it was the castle, not the tower) etc. What I suggest here is to delete this article that is full of wrong information and if one day, someone created the article of the mosque or the castle that I mentioned above, we can also mention from this "Holy Cross Tower". Right now, almost all of the content is wrong, maybe, after I complete my work in the Turkish Galata Tower article, I can create one of them ("Kastellion'un kulesiyle karıştırılması" section is about the confusion between the current Galata Tower and this tower that was demolished during the 1776 earthquake).-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• An English-language source @ TimothyBlue:... The article is literally full of misinformation...-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, or at least redirect to Galata Tower. – Cupper52 ^Discuss! 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Galata Tower. Not enough info as a standalone article. Maybe merging the info here into the history section seems reasonable. CAVETOWNFAN ( talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge per cavetownfan; it would be a better way to organize the content in both articles. ~EdGl talk 18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Abstain since Nanahuatl has cast doubt on the veracity of the article and I'm not about to become a scholar on Byzantine history to make heads or tails of this. :) ~EdGl talk 00:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge As per cavetownfan. SpareSeiko ( talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ CAVETOWNFAN:, @ EdGl:, @ SpareSeiko:, literally everything is wrong in the article. Besides there were two different towers throught the history, adding the wrong information to the Galata Tower article won't do anything good. Even if we add, I'll have to remove because they're basically wrong :)-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (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.