Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cave of Roses

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. Needs reliable sources. El_C 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cave_of_Roses

I'm nominating this for deletion as it's a factoid. On looking into it, it seems to originate from Rambaud's history of Russia and Saltus's English translation thereof, where it's mentioned in passing as the "cave of roses"/"trou aux roses", a dungeon with reptiles. This as part of a paragraph on Gustav III which is generally exaggerated and distorted. I find no such description in any account of Swedish history and doubt anyone ever will because what's actually being referenced is Rosenkammaren ("the rose chamber"), which was merely the torture room at Nya Smedjegården prison. It was short lived (1740s-1772) and rarely used even before the 1772 abolishment of torture. By no account were snakes or reptiles used; cold water was the instrument of torture.

I don't think the historical reality here is notable enough to warrant mention outside of an article on Smedjegården (which en-wikipedia doesn't have). And as a myth, it doesn't seem notable enough either - Google books finds the term mentioned in only one place outside Rambaud, a US congress hearing. (Quite possibly where the cited book got it from) Which I think makes it unworthy of any mention at all. --BluePlatypus 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Even if a mistranslation/misunderstanding which created a minor myth, this article can still stand as a referenced article about that misunderstanding Bwithh 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it can't though, since there's no source describing it as a myth. (Which in itself speaks of the non-notability) The above conclusion, however likely, is still Original Research on my part and can't be included in an article. To put it simply: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an errata. --BluePlatypus 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per BluePlatypus, who very evidently has done his homework. There are a (very) few mentions on Google but all seem to track back to a common source, and all come down to the highlighted bizarre fact of the week from the bizarre book of the week. Next week it will be something else. Guy 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Nonsense. Glendoremus 06:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Hemmingsen 17:29, 10 October 2006 (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.