Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/226 in Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 all. Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 226 in Ireland

226 in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The sole source for this article is a primary source, the Annals of the Four Masters, written in the 17th century and not renowned for its reliability, including as it does myth, legend and folk-tales among other material. If there were a battle of Crinna, which is in itself unknowable, it cannot be dated to 226 AD: "Irish annalistic records at such an early period are not to be taken as historically authentic" [Fergus Kelly, "Cormac mac Airt", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, here].

The same is true of the events in:

There is little point in merging this material as it will be equally unverifiable when merged. The most recent source on Irish chronology is Volume VIII of the Royal Irish Academy's New History of Ireland and this contains no items at all for the third century in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • From the source given by the nominator could a verifiable article about 3rd century Ireland be written that includes events that are sourced and a sourced explanation of why it isn't actually possible to know if they took place. Guest9999 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT says, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." The answer is that no encyclopedia written by experts would have a 226 in Ireland article or a 3rd century in Ireland article, so the answer is that nothing should appear. There's no reason to write a non-chronology of non-events involving non-people when things are this simple. WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history ...". The RIA history fits this in every respect, random websites and primary sources do not. And this is not a case where "material may be outdated by more recent research". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Seventeenth-century speculation about a few unverifiable events in 3rd-century Ireland. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete from the well reasoned comments above, the current content of the articles and the (somewhat limited) research I have been able to do there is no apparent coverage of the topic by reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based. Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. There is no way to verify these kind of events Tavix (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all Only one event, not historical, fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (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.