Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Old Oyo

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus‎. Some of the Keep arguments lack P&G basis, but I see no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Old Oyo

edit

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

Sack of Old Oyo (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)

The sources cited in this article don't support the idea that the sack of the city was a battle at all. In fact, after the Battle of Ilorin the inhabitants evacuated the city to avoid a brutal sack, and Ilorin forces "sacked" an entirely empty town. This content belongs on Oyo-Ile rather than in a standalone page. Catjacket (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this was marked for deletion? This fall wasThe history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate - https://archive.org/details/historyofyorubas00john/page/266/mode/2up?q=katunga (archived so anyone can read) page266 & 267. clearly narrates why oyo, or katunga fell. There was a resistance, and it was a battle-esque that led to the fall. Though it fell for other reasons, mostly because of ilroin, and people deserting it. And all the towns "any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged" - Page 260. So again can you explain why this is going on deletion? The same book is one of, if not the most documented histories of the Yoruba People, and is also on Google books, you can find this everywhere > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_the_Yorubas_from_the_Earl/RL7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR19&printsec=frontcover . I put great work, and a lot of hours, of research, and reading for my wikipedia pages, why are they consistently being nominated to get taken down? I have a smear campaign against me. And i would liek to appeal this, Please! Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't mean to discredit the work that you're doing, and I'm certainly not trying to smear you. I just think that the content that you've put on Sack of Old Oyo would be better placed on Oyo-Ile rather than on a standalone page. Samuel Johnson is pretty clear that Old Oyo was cleared out of almost all of its inhabitants and their belongings before the Ilorin troops showed up. Akinwumi Ogundiran and Stephen Akintoye agree. So it wasn't a battle, and whether or not it was a sack is debatable IMO since there was little or no population in the town at the time. But just because there isn't a standalone page doesn't mean the content doesn't matter. It should just be on Oyo-Ile, where it'll be easier to find anyway.
As for your other articles that have been nominated for deletion, I'd be happy to help you get Battle of Pamo, Mugbamugba War and Battle of Aboh up to Wikipedia standards if you'd like. I just finished reading Ogundiran's Yoruba: A New History and Akintoye's A History of the Yoruba People, and they both could be useful. Catjacket (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't tihnk you're trying to discredit my work, but when you're splitting hairs over things that are miniscule, and saying a wikipedia page doesn't deserve to exist, I believe so. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile. Your argument would be fine, if you say maybe change it from "Sack of Katunga" to abandoment, or desertification. But again, that shouldn't remove the fact, that this is more than credible to be a wikipedia page. And the fact i cited multiple times arguably the most detailed pre-colonial history about Yorubas, should show this is is a legitimate page, with a historical goal.
As for helping me get the battle of pamo, mugbamugba war, and aboh, up to wikipedia's standards, please let me know. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page covers the general overview of the sacking of the capital, this event basically marks the point at which the very decisive collapse of the empire's political center in the 1830s fell. But the page might need a little rephrasing since calling it a battle might oversimplify the event, since it was less of a single battle and more a series of invasions, etc, and eventual abandonment of the city around 1835–1837. But it's important to note that the term "sack" in historical contexts does not require the presence of a battle or active defense, since the sacking of a city refers to the looting and destroying, or even razing of a city at times, often after it has been abandoned or conquered.[1] Considering the symbolic and political importance of the town, even if the citizens of the town fled or didn't flee, there would still be valuable resources, possessions, and also infrastructure left behind. The invading army could still seize these assets and leave the city stripped of its wealth and resources. Whether there was an actual pitched battle in the area is secondary to the fact that its fall marked the end of the Oyo Empire itself. Also, sources in the article support the term “sack,” evidenced in Samuel Johnson’s History of the Yorubas "Oyo at length capitulated and the Ilorin troops entered and sacked the city. Oyo was plundered of nearly everything, but no captives were made excepting some Oyo beauties who were carried away with the spoils." [2] Also, Wikipedia hosts many pages about historical events that involved little fighting but had a massive political impact so the Sack of Old Oyo, as the final act of a once-dominant West African empire, clearly meets this precedent. The page needs a simple reframing since sack seems to be a problem, maybe fall or siege would be better.Bernadine okoro (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for your feedback. I think your proposal to reframe the page to clarify that there was not an active defense or population present is a possible compromise. Perhaps renaming it to 'Evacuation of Old Oyo' would be more accurate than 'sack', since it was the fleeing inhabitants who stripped the town of valuables more than the invaders. But even in that instance, I think it fails the WP:NOTE test and would be better as a section on the Oyo-Ile page. After all, Johnson only dedicated 2 sentences to the whole event: "The citizen's fearing that he would receive re-inforcement from Ilorin did not wait to try any further conclusions ; the great metropolis was deserted, some fled to Kihisi, some to Igboho, and some even to Ilorin. As it was not a flight from an enemy in pursuit many who reached Kihisi and Igboho safely with their family returned again and again for their household goods and chattels till one Agandangban went and told Lanloke that Oyo had been deserted, and the latter proceeded immediately to plunder, and carry away what was left by the citizens."
    One of your examples, in fact, illustrates my point nicely. The sack that Johnson is referring to on page 217 is not the final fall of the city, but rather one that took place earlier, during the initial rise of Ilorin. A page called 'Sack of Old-Oyo' should probably be about this first sacking rather than the later abandonment, but we don't have enough information about either 'sacking' to merit a standalone page, as far as a I know. Catjacket (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for engaging in this discussion with care and good faith. I see your point regarding the earlier reference to a “sack” on page 217 of The History of the Yorubas, and I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the various phases of Old Oyo’s decline—particularly the initial incursion during the rise of Ilorin and the final abandonment of the capital. However, I would argue that the cumulative process—including military action, desertion, and political collapse—forms a historically significant event that is often collectively referred to (in both academic and public discourse) as the "fall" or "sack" of Old Oyo. To clarify, the article I created focuses not just on a single "battle" or isolated event, but on the entire chain of events—including the Ilorin campaigns, the resistance described in Johnson (pp. 260, 266–267), and the subsequent loss of hegemony over subordinate towns like Gbodo. In this context, the term “sack” may be interpreted as a figurative description of collapse due to sustained conflict and internal disintegration, not necessarily a single moment of conquest like a classic battlefield engagement. I also believe the topic merits a standalone article for several reasons: Academic treatment: Authors like Akinwumi Ogundiran (Yoruba: A New History) and Stephen Akintoye treat the fall of Old Oyo as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history—even if it's complex and unfolds over time. Public interest and educational value: Many readers search for the fall of Old Oyo as a standalone subject, not just as a subsection of a broader article. Having a dedicated page improves accessibility, clarity, and depth. Title flexibility: If the term "Sack of Old Oyo" causes confusion or implies a narrow focus, I am more than open to renaming the article to something more neutral and descriptive, such as “Fall of Old Oyo”, “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”, or “Decline of the Oyo Empire’s Capital”. Incompleteness ≠ Non-notability: While the primary sources may not offer precise dates or a blow-by-blow account of either “sack,” that doesn't diminish the notability or historical impact of the event. Wikipedia hosts many articles about gradual collapses or unclear sequences of events, particularly when multiple reputable sources discuss them in depth. I welcome collaboration to clarify the scope and strengthen the sourcing. But I believe that merging this content into Oyo-Ile would oversimplify a pivotal transformation in Yoruba history. A separate article—properly framed, titled, and sourced—allows space for nuance and invites further expansion. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sack of Old Oyo page right now only has a 'Background' and 'Aftermath' section. In other words, none of the page's content is about the actual fall of the city of Old Oyo - it's just about the events going on around it. So either we change the title to match the content, or we delete it.
    I think I understand better where you're coming from now. Sounds like you think of the Sack of Old Oyo page as the place where you can read about the entire war, or entire series of conflicts that included the ultimate fall of Oyo-Ile. If I'm understanding your position correctly, then the page should be renamed something like 'Collapse of the Oyo Empire'. I don't hate that option, but I still don't see how that page would make life easier for readers. If you're looking for a history of the empire and its fall, the first place you would look would be Oyo Empire or Yoruba Wars, maybe Battle of Ilorin. If you wanted a history of the city specifically, obviously Oyo-Ile is the place to go. Creating new articles when there are existing articles that need this content just makes it harder to keep Wikipedia at the high level of quality and reliability that we all want.
    Johnson, Ogundiran, and Akintoye all treat the fall of the Oyo Empire as a distinct, analyzable phenomenon in Yoruba political and military history. But none of them treat the fall of the city of Oyo-Ile as such. In fact, in their books the fall of the city only stands out because it is such a non-event - after the Battle of Ilorin, people just evacuate the city on their own. You're right that the evacuation is a watershed moment and shouldn't be oversimplified, but it is the sources themselves who are doing the oversimplifying. As I pointed out before, Johnson only dedicates two sentences to the sack. And we have to follow the sources: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Catjacket (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While Johnson, Ogundiran, and Akintoye may not spend dozens of pages detailing the fall of the city itself, all three frame the event as a major historical turning point—the symbolic and functional end of centralized Oyo power. That’s not a "non-event"; it’s a transitional moment between eras in Yoruba political history.
    Just because the population evacuated prior to Ilorin's arrival doesn’t mean there wasn’t an act of defeat or collapse. Johnson explicitly states that after the desertion, the Ilorin forces arrived, seized the ruins, and extinguished any residual authority—that is a sack by broader historical standards. In many world histories, a “sack” often includes symbolic occupation, looting, or razing after a city is abandoned—especially if that abandonment was driven by war, fear, or defeat. Again if you make the argument that the wiki can be titled as abandoment, i can see an argument of that. I hope the wikipedia moderators, can see this is just a ludacrus smear attack at best. None of this counts as "original resesarch", as it is arguably the most documented pre-colonial book on Yorubas. And i don't know how imply's a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source, when the source pretty much argues exactly for what is here.
    Wikipedia hosts standalone articles on similar moments in global history—even when no major “battle” took place; like fall of Saigon at the tip of my head. I'm not using that as an excuse, but again I hope from the details of this argument the wiki moderators can see, this is just arguing about semantics. And at best; a wiki name change to abandon, or evacuation. In several of these, evacuation, symbolic defeat, and loss of control define the event more than violent conflict itself. The same logic applies here. Again i'm more than willing to change the title to evacuation or abandonment. I even have more sources for it, i mostly relied on one, because Johnson's book is the oldest, (over a century old), and seen as the most credible as its closest to the time period.
    Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion of the article titled "Sack of Old Oyo". While I appreciate and understand the concerns raised, I believe the topic merits its own dedicated page based on historical significance, available sources, and the guidelines for notability outlined by Wikipedia. The fall or "sack" of Old Oyo (also referred to as Katunga) represents a major turning point in Yoruba history. As documented in The History of the Yorubas by Samuel Johnson (pages 260, 266–267), the event was not merely a peaceful abandonment, but part of a gradual disintegration exacerbated by political fragmentation, internal rebellion, and eventual military incursions. While some inhabitants had fled, Johnson explicitly notes resistance and a form of confrontation with Ilorin forces. This process, whether described as a "sack" or a strategic collapse, has been characterized as both military and political in nature, warranting more than just a paragraph in a general article on Oyo-Ile.The Johnson text is a foundational source on Yoruba history, widely recognized and cited by scholars and available publicly through Archive.org and Google Books. Other sources, including Akinwumi Ogundiran’s Yoruba: A New History and Stephen Akintoye’s A History of the Yoruba People, further contextualize this event. While interpretations may vary slightly between scholars, the event is consistently recognized and discussed in scholarly literature, fulfilling Wikipedia’s requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources.Wikipedia regularly hosts dedicated articles for pivotal historical events, even when closely related to larger subjects (e.g., individual battles, uprisings, or sackings). Keeping the Sack of Old Oyo as a standalone article allows for more comprehensive treatment, sourcing, and debate around its nature, without overburdening the main Oyo-Ile page. Furthermore, this enables clearer navigation and improves reader access to deeper historical information.As the article’s creator, I invested considerable time in reading, interpreting, and referencing multiple scholarly sources to develop content that meets Wikipedia’s standards. I welcome collaborative editing and criticism in good faith and am happy to revise or restructure the article where needed. However, outright deletion risks disregarding both historical nuance and the labor involved in preserving underrepresented African historical narratives.
If the primary concern is scope overlap with the Oyo-Ile article or concerns about whether "sack" is the most accurate term, I am open to renaming the article (e.g., “Fall of Old Oyo” or “Collapse of Oyo-Ile”) and improving source attribution and language clarity. But deletion is not the ideal solution for a historically attested and sourced subject.
The event commonly referred to as the “Sack of Old Oyo” represents a complex, consequential episode in Yoruba and West African history. It is sufficiently covered in reliable sources and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. I respectfully request that the page not be deleted but instead improved collaboratively. Thank you for your time and consideration. Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oluwafemi1726, copying large language models' AI-generated text in Wikipedia discussions, as you have done here, is disruptive. Please do not do so again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obifcb Obifcb1 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:31, 3 July 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sack_of_Old_Oyo&oldid=1298594941"